Newsletter 846 - Adelaide Institute

ADELAIDE INSTITUTE
PO Box 3300
Adelaide 5067
Australia
Mob: 61+401692057
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org
Online
ISSN 1440-9828
March 2015 No 846
______________________________________________________________________
Prime Minister Abbott Compares Job Losses To
The Holocaust
'Under members opposite defence jobs in this country declined by 10 per cent. There
was a holocaust of jobs, a holocaust of jobs in defence industries under members
opposite.That's what there was, Madam Speaker, jobs, jobs - I'm sorry and I withdraw,
Madam Speaker.'
12 February 2015 at 2:28 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
1
>>Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s apology for his use of the word “Holocaust” during a political debate
concerning the decline of Defence jobs in Australia, is a most telling incident. Abbot used the word merely for
emphasis and description.“There was a Holocaust of jobs in Defence industries under Members Opposite” Not
even referring to the alleged event, this shows how fragile and obscene political correctness in Australia has
become, wherein we cannot even use a particular word as if the Jews have a copyright over it. Abbot would
subsequently correct himself and apologise stating “there was a decimation” after receiving harsh looks and
gasps from his peers.
As a student with a dissenting historical opinion on the Holocaust, having been sent to a school psychiatrist
merely for sourcing revisionist information, I find this a very intriguing and interesting event, albeit not very
surprising. It seems it's not just those of us who understand the true nature of power in this world that have to
watch our tongue, due to the relentless suppression of free speech, but our so-called leaders have to be careful
as well, which says much of their character and those they wish to appease.<< S Royle – 12 February 2015.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-february-12-2015-2015021213cgme.html
________________________________________________
The Rise and Fall of the Holocaust Industry
By Jonas E. Alexis on May 19, 2013
“At the end of the twentieth century, the ‘Holocaust’ is being bought and sold…In short, ‘Shoah
[Hebrew word for Holocaust] business’ is big business.”--Tim Cole, Jewish Professor of History at
the University of Bristol[1]
that the Jewish establishment thought that killing the
book “with kindness was the best strategy.”[5]
Anti-Semitism, distortion of facts, among other words,
were applied to describe the book by a number of Jewish
writers.[6] Israel Guttman, “formerly the chief historian of
Yad Vashem,” called the book an “anti-Semitic
lampoon.”[7]
Yet when those people are challenged to back up such
charges from assertions made in the book itself, and to
refute the documented claims Finkelstein made, none
could produce evidentiary foundation. As some have
stated, it is not a matter of facts that is the issue, but the
style that Finkelstein uses in the book.
Michael Brenner, a professor of Jewish history at the
University of Munich, Germany, somewhat agrees with
Finkelstein’s work, and at the same time diverges from
him because, well, of his style:
Norman Finkelstein
When Norman Finkelstein wrote The Holocaust
Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish
Suffering in 2000, he argues that Holocaust
“hoaxers”
and
“hucksters”—namely
Jewish
organizations—have exploited what happened in
Nazi Germany in order to get millions of dollars
from Swiss banks.[2] Finkelstein calls those Jewish
leaders a “repellent gang of plutocrats, hoodlums,
and hucksters.”[3]
The book was quickly denounced as a work of an antiSemite, despite the fact that Finkelstein lost his
grandparents in Nazi Germany. Finkelstein was teaching
at Hunter College at the time and lost his job right after
the publication of the book.[4]
Many skeptics questioned his motives—and they should
have, since serious scholarship dictates that a person’s
motive should also be put under the light of reason and
intellectual honesty.
Yet
no
one
has
put
forward
a
reasonable
counterargument to Finkelstein’s thesis.Haaretz told us
“There is a nucleus of justified claims in the book,
including the stuff about the compensation issue, the lack
of transparency of the Jewish organizations that are
handling the matter, and the Holocaust obsession of the
American Jewish establishment. Nevertheless, in order to
gain a proper understanding of these claims, Novick’s
book was definitely enough. Finkelstein’s style only
makes it harder to accept these claims.”[8]
Ten years later, some Jewish organizations continued to
prove that Finkelstein was right. The Nadav Haetzni’s law
firm, “which provides legal advice to the state-owned
Company for Restitution of Holocaust Victims Assets,”
was
one
of
those
organizations.
The
law
firm, Haaretz tells us, “has earned millions of shekels in
fees over the last three years.”
That’s not all, the firm “took in NIS 1.2 million in fees in
2008 and over NIS 1 million in 2009; the figure for 2007
was similar. That sum is on top of the hundreds of
thousands of shekels the company paid to other law
firms during those years.”[9]
The same year, The Jewish Week told us,
“The Claims Conference fired three employees last week
who allegedly approved more than 100 fraudulent
Holocaust-era claims — filed primarily by Russians now
living in Brooklyn — that bilked the German government
out of more than $350,000, The Jewish Week has
learned.”[10]
Semen Domnister, a Claims Conference Leader worker
and ringleader, was found guilty of “falsified applications
2
for German funds.”[11] 28 other people were found guilty
as well.
The FBI, the Jerusalem Post told us in 2010, “was
investigating fraudulent misappropriation of at least $7
million, possibly substantially more, over the past decade
from the Article 2 Fund created in 1995 by the German
government to provide quarterly pensions to eligible
Holocaust survivors.”[12]
The Claims Conference, in the end, was responsible for a
massive fraud, and Jewish hoaxers were amassing a
whopping $57 million from it.[13] One German observer
who was at the trial simply was shocked to see how the
organization was taking “money collected as taxes from
German citizens” and how the money “went to
individuals who were not Holocaust survivors.”[14]
The Claims Conference has been responsible for pressing
the German government over compensation claims made
by alleged victims of the Holocaust. This is very bizarre
for obvious reasons.
What kind of compensation did Christians or the Russian
peasants receive after the Bolshevik regime wiped out
more than twenty million people[15]—a figure that is far
greater than the figure that is attributed to the Jews
killed in Nazi Germany? Within less than three years, the
Bolsheviks were responsible for starving more than six
million people.[16]No compensation was allocated to their
children, let alone their generational children. (Yet
the Jerusalem Post declared that in 2010 Benjamin
Netanyahu was considering designs for a Red Army
memorial![17])
What kind of compensation did the German civilians
receive right after World War II, when the Red Army
raped and tortured millions of men, women and
children?[18] The Turkish government, which was run by
Jewish revolutionaries and Freemasons known as the
Donmeh from 1915 until 1923, liquidated about 1.5
million
Armenian
Christians.[19] What
kind
of
compensation did those Christians receive? What kind of
compensation did the Germans receive after the bombing
of Dresden?[20] What kind of compensation did Iraqi
families receive when the neoconservative movement
largely destroyed the country?[ 21]
Bachmann said this maybe because she realized that
America had already become “the greatest debtor nation
in history.”[24] And after George W. Bush did Israel’s dirty
work by invading Iraq, Daniel Tauber of the Jerusalem
Postdeclared, “Thank you, George W. Bush!”[25]
This is certainly immoral. As former security advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski noted,
“Hitler’s crimes continue to be justly punished. But there
are literally thousands of former killers and former
torturers in the Soviet Union, who live off official
pensions
and
attend
the
various
revolutionary
celebrations, decked out with their medals.”[26]
In 2009, “Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz will demand
between 450 million to 1 billion euros in reparations from
Germany on behalf of Jews forced into slave labor during
the Holocaust.”[27]
In 2011, alleged Holocaust survivors in Miami, Florida
(where this writer is from), wanted to sue European
insurance companies in order to gain $20 billion in
compensation and wanted Congress to help them achieve
that goal.[28]
In the same year, “Menachem Youlus, a rabbi who
claimed that he rescued Torah scrolls lost during the
Holocaust, was arrested on fraud charges and accused of
fabricating the stories.”[29] Youlus, the “Jewish Indiana
Jones,” was discovered to have used his organization,
Save a Torah Inc., to embezzle thousands of dollars.”[30]
As the late Jewish academic Israel Shahak rightly argues,
“In the last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by
Jews is by far greater than the number of the Jews killed
by non-Jews…Although the struggle against antiSemitism (and of all forms of racism) should never cease,
the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism,
which must include a critique of classical Judaism, is now
of equal or greater importance.”[31]
And what does Europe say in return? By the end of
January of this year, Angela Merkel declared that
Germany has an “everlasting responsibility for the crimes
of National Socialism, for the victims of World War II
and, above all, for the Holocaust.”
She continued to say, “And this must be made clear from
generation to generation and it must be said with
bravery and moral courage, every individual can make a
contribution so that racism and anti-Semitism have no
chance.”[32]
Everlasting responsibility? Should the former Soviet
Union have an “everlasting” responsibility for the
extermination of more than fifty million people? Should
Marxist Mao have an everlasting responsibility for the
extermination of about 45 million people within less than
six years?[33]
Why can’t we be consistent and memorialize all the dead?
All people are precious, regardless of their background.
Why should we apotheosize one group of people at the
expense of everyone else?
Michelle Bachmann
Yet during her presidential debate last year, Michelle
Bachmann—blessed her heart—declared that countries
such as Iraq and Libya should reimburse the United
States because we have liberated them.[22] What a
genius.
Never mind that the neoconservatives sent a six-trillion
dollar bill to the average American.[23] Never mind that
the war in Iraq was based on hoaxes. The Iraqis who are
still ruined by the war have to reimburse!
The more we learn about the Holocaust business, the
more ridiculous the business becomes.[34] It becomes so
ridiculous that Jewish scholar and flaming Zionist
Menachem Rosensaft, a lecturer at Columbia and Cornell
universities, declared in 2011 that “profiting from Nazi
memorabilia should be banned.”[35]
In 2010, a Jewish watchmaker by the name of Jack
Barouh was guilty of tax evasion, and his response was
that
“his secretive behaviour was motivated by his fear as a
Jew of persecution and sudden loss. He is just one of
many US citizens being tried for tax evasion who held
secret accounts at the Swiss bank, UBS. The bank last
3
year admitted to the US government it had hundreds of
such accounts…[Barouh] He admitted hiding about $10m
(£6.5m) in bank accounts he controlled from 2002 to
2008, not only in Switzerland. He, alongside hundreds of
others, were caught after UBS last year admitted
orchestrating tax evasion among rich US clients and paid
a $780m fine.”[36]
And almost every year we are discovering that the
Holocaust industry is a one of the biggest rackets in the
twentieth century. But the issue of racketeering goes
much deeper—and it is the by-product of an ideology.
These stories were also presented at the Nuremberg Trial
of 1945-1946 and were later established to be “true.”
Even alleged eyewitnesses were summoned to testify
that they actually saw the whole event.
A large part of Europe ended up believing the Jewish
soap story. In America, the story was even more
incredible and hysterical. Soviet Jewish leader Solomon
Mikhoels from Moscow would tour the United States
showing his audience a bar of soap which he maintained
was a direct result of Jewish soap manufactured by Nazi
Germany.[41]
Ilya Ehrenburg
For example, the idea that Nazi Germany made soap out
of Jewish fat was largely engineered by Simon
Wiesenthal, co-founder of the Jewish Historical
Documentation Center in Austria, and founder of the
Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California. The
idea was so popular then that it was later uncritically
accepted as fact in popular history books such as The
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.[37]
Even before that, the most famous Jewish propagandist
of that era, Ilya Ehrenburg, made it clear in his book The
Complete Black Book of Russian Jewry that “In another
section of the Belzec camp was an enormous soap
factory. The Germans picked out the fattest people,
murdered them, and boiled them down for soap. The
Gestapo thugs never denied the existence of a
‘production process’ of this kind. Whenever they wanted
to imitate a Jew, they would say to him, ‘We’ll make a
soap out of you.’”[38]
Previously Ehrnburg wrote,
“The Jews were taken into an enormous hall that could
hold up to a thousand people. The Germans had led
electric wires along the walls of the hall. The wires had
no insulation. The same wires also ran across the floor.
As soon as the hall was filled with naked people, the
German ran a powerful electrical current through the
wires.” It was one huge electric chair. The likes of which
no criminal fantasy has ever dreamt up.”[39]
Ehrenburg’s complete forgeries did not stop there, and
he went on to imagine that “As the bodies burned, they
would start to move in various ways; they curled up and
stretched out…It was as though the dead were saying
that all goodness was lost, that this world might be
transformed into the finest soap…”[40]
These powerful assertions and imaginary reactions had a
strong and detrimental effect on the Holocaust story.
Ilya Ehrenburg cited one bank clerk by the name of
Arthur Rozenshtraukh who “held this ‘Jewish soap’ in his
own hands.”[42]So after World War II, a number of books
and articles immediately began to pick up the idea and
propagate it as historical truth, and during the 1960s,
1970s, 1980s, the Jewish soap story was established as
a “historical” event. The Jewish writer Max I. Dimont
made those ideas even more popular in his book Jews,
God and History,[43] first published in 1962. Over a
million and half copies of this book were sold.
Even today, there are a number of people who still
maintain that there might have been some truth to the
story. Michael Shermer ofSkeptic Magazine and his coauthor Alex Grobman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center
write a section about the soap story in their
book Denying History, concluding:
“What can we conclude about this story? Soap was never
manufactured on an industrial scale from victims’ bodies,
but it may have been done experimentally. As in the case
of renegade SS unit abusing corpses, there may have
been isolated cases of turning human fat into soap, but
certainly not an organized plan to do so on any scale. We
agree with the holocaust historian Yisrael Gutman, who
concludes that ‘it was never done on a mass scale.’”[44]
Shermer quotes Raul Hilberg to the effect that the soap
story might have actually been a historical event, yet
Hilberg himself declared in his widely read study that the
soap story is a sheer myth. Other Jewish historians such
as Walter Laqueur and Yehuda Bauer declare the same
thing.[45] Jewish
writer
D.
D.
Guttenplan,
who
interviewed Hilberg for his book The Holocaust on Trial,
wrote:
“For a long time everyone knew the Nazis made soap
from the fat of murdered Jews. In its first reports on the
extermination camps in November 1942 the New York
Times quoted Dr. Stephen Wise, head of the American
Jewish Congress, who claimed that the bodies of the dead
were being exploited for soap, fat, and lubricants. In the
Polish town of Piotrkow, as the transports of Jews passed
through the town the locals would say “Jada na midlo.”
(‘They travel on their way to soap.’
“After the war, the municipal museum in Prague
displayed a bar of soap it said had been made from
Jewish corpses. It wasn’t. The grisly tale of human beings
4
rendered into soap, though it figured in some of the
earliest accounts of events inside Nazi-occupied Europe,
has long been rejected by historians as a recycled leftover from the First World War, when similar atrocity
stories were staples of Allied propaganda.”[46]
Michael Shermer
Guttenplan does not tell us that when the story first
came out, it was rejected by a number of people who are
now being labeled “Holocaust deniers.” Those same
people were persecuted, harassed and were even called
anti-Semites for exposing it. Yet when the soap story
turned out to be false, popular historians gave no credit
where credit is due. Those “Holocaust deniers” could
have accused those popular historians of plagiarism.
What strikes me as odd is that Shermer claims to be a
skeptic of any claim, but he does not apply his skeptical
skills to the claims that have been made by the
Holocaust establishment.
Shermer continues to claim that extraordinary claims
demand extraordinary evidence, but he still believes that
there was probably some truth in the soap story, despite
the fact that he does not give the evidence for this.
Leaving this aside, even the Israeli documentation center
Yad Vashem in Jerusalem stays away from the soap story
as much as possible. They declared that “There is no
documentary evidence that the Nazis made soap out of
human fat.”[47]
Yet no matter how many times a lie is repeated, always
keep in mind that truth in the end will triumph. No
serious historian would now maintain that the soap idea
can sustain any historical and forensic validity, unless he
wants to lose his credibility as a historian. So we can
ignore Shermer and his co-author now.
Even Jews who would hold the most extreme views of
the Holocaust would grudgingly back away from the idea.
Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University herself told the Los
Angeles Times in 1981: “The fact is that the Nazis never
used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else,
for the production of soap.”[48]
In the same vein, Yehuda Bauer, head of the Hebrew
University’s Holocaust history department, declared:
“The Nazis did enough horrible things during the
Holocaust. We do not have to go on believing untrue
stories.”[49]
What’s even more shocking is that historians from the
1980s were pretty much clear about the soap story: that
it was only rumors with no factual accuracy.[50] Shermer
would have made a stronger case as a skeptic had he
thoroughly examined the validity of the claims made by
the Holocaust establishment. But far be it from me to tell
a self-proclaimed skeptic how to do his job.
The Hoax of Simon Wiesenthal
Simon Wiesenthal, according to the secular standard, is a
Nazi Holocaust hero. He was nominated four times for
the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, until 2009 no one was able to
decipher the complete hoaxes and frauds fabricated by
Wiesenthal. As noted British writer Guy Walters
documents:
“His reputation is built on sand. He was a liar — and a bad
one at that. From the end of the Second World War to the
end of his life in 2005, he would lie repeatedly about his
supposed hunt for Eichmann as well as his other Nazihunting exploits. He would also concoct outrageous
stories about his war years and make false claims about
his academic career.
“There are so many inconsistencies between his three
main memoirs and between those memoirs and
contemporaneous documents, that it is impossible to
establish a reliable narrative from them. Wiesenthal’s
scant regard for the truth makes it possible to doubt
everything he ever wrote or said.
“Some may feel I am too harsh on him and that I run a
professional danger in seemingly allying myself with a
vile host of neo-Nazis, revisionists, Holocaust deniers and
anti-Semites. I belong firmly outside any of these squalid
camps and it is my intention to wrestle criticism of
Wiesenthal away from their clutches. His figure is a
complex and important one. If there was a motive for his
duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions.
“For his untruths are not the only shocking discoveries I
have made researching the escape of Nazi war criminals.
I found a lack of political will for hunting them. Many
could have been brought to justice had governments
allocated even comparatively meagre resources to their
pursuit. It is partly thanks to Wiesenthal that the
Holocaust has.”[51]
Walters has meticulously gone over many of Wiesenthal’s
obvious lies and fabrications in his book Hunting
Evil.[52]Even Deborah Lipstadt, of all people, declares that
Wiesenthal is a charlatan and is not interested in the
truth. Building on Tom Segev’s work Simon Wiesenthal:
The Life and Legends, Lipstadt writes that Wiesenthal
indeed
“‘fabricated’ evidence, ‘snatched’ stories out of thin air,
‘fantasized,’ was ‘often inaccurate,’ ‘came up with things
that never happened, ‘invented’ facts, ‘claim[ed] credit’
for things he never did…Wiesenthal’s account of his
experiences during the years of the Holocaust is clearly
fabricated.”[53]
Wiesenthal, for most of his life, was working for the
Mossad,[54] one of the evil and covert intelligence
operations on the face of the earth. They are known for
their acts of acts of terrorism against perceived
enemies.[55]
In 1974, Simon Wiesenthal accused Frank Walus of
having collaborated with the Gestapo during World War
II. It must have been a bad omen for Walus when at
least twelve Jews came to the stand and testified that as
Nazi survivors, they believed that Walus was guilty of
war crime in the killing of young children and Jews in the
Polish towns of Czestochowa and Kielce. Not only that,
5
one of the “witnesses” alleged that Walus “stomped to
death a young pregnant Jew.”[56]
Simon Wiesenthal
With all his honesty and courage, Walus presented
evidentiary documents which proved that the testimonies
by the “eyewitnesses” were false. As the Toronto
Star declared,
“There
were
numerous
glaring
discrepancies in Wiesenthal’s case against Walus. For
one, Walus would have been only 17-years-old when he
was ‘a Gestapo officer.’ He had been described as being
6 feet tall; when he was only 5 feet and 4 inches tall.
Walus, moreover, was Polish; hence, the Nazis would
never have allowed him to join the Gestapo.”[57]
Other convincing evidence was on Walus’ side:
“Searches of German war records failed to turn up any
record of a Frank Walus, or anyone with a similar name.
A Polish war crimes commission had no record of any
Walus. Perhaps most important, Walus was able to
substantiate with documents and witnesses his wartime
alibi: he had been sent to Bavaria, where he performed
forced labor on farms.
Frank Walus
“Wartime photographs of Walus on a Bavarian farm—
which looked so different from his 1978 appearance that
the judge in Walus’s first trial suspected that it was
somebody else in the photo—were matched to another,
indisputable photograph of Walus as a civilian guard in
the American occupation.”[58]
The Jewish party was over. Walus was indeed acquitted,
and the U.S. Justice Department paid him $34,000 for
defaming his reputation. Walus said he spent “$120,000
trying to clear his name.”[59]
But after this incident, one Jewish expert, Gideon
Epstein, agreed that there needs to be more than just
“eyewitnesses” because alleged eyewitnesses can be
wolves in sheep’s clothing: “The Walus case, more than
anything else, clearly demonstrates the importance of
documentary evidence as opposed to eyewitnesses.”[60]
One man who helped Walus financially was the Christian
activist Jerome Brentar. In the late 1980s, Brentar
served on Vice President Bush’s nationalities coalition,
and for the latter part of his life he spent his own money
to defend those who were falsely accused of crimes. “He
lost his once thriving travel agency because of his vicious
publicity engendered, and now lives at the edge of
poverty in forced retirement on his social security
pension.”
What made Brentar a spotlight in the media and within
the Jewish community was his strong conviction that
John Demjanjuk was not a war criminal. He declared, “I
could have been an atheist. I could have been a
polygamist. I could have been anything else and
questions wouldn’t have been asked. And now because I
helped a poor victim, I’m everything under the
sun.”[61] Wiesenthal did accuse Demjanjuk of the real
person responsible for the alleged gas chambers at
Treblinka.[62]
Jewish War Criminals After World War II?
When the table got turned around, Wiesenthal and the
state of Israel used a different set of rules. In 2005, the
Israeli newspaper Haaretz declared that
“Israel has refused for a second time to extradite to
Poland a Jewish man accused of crimes against German
prisoners just after the end of World War II…Morel
commanded a communist-run camp for German
prisoners in southern Poland in 1945 after Soviet troops
occupied the country.
“Polish authorities accuse him of genocide by seeking to
exterminate German prisoners by starving them to
death, depriving them of medical care as well as carrying
out torture and sanctioning torture by his subordinates.
Polish prosecutors charge that Morel is responsible for
the deaths of at least 1,500 prisoners in the
Swietochlowice camp…Polish historians generally agree
that the communist government imprisoned 100,000
Germans, mostly civilians deemed threats to the state
after World War II. At least 15,000 died due to ill
treatment, and the rest were freed by 1950.”[63]
So much for Nazi hunters. As Professor Tim Cole
declared, Shoah business has become big business. And
to challenge Shoah is to be an anti-Semite.
David Horowitz writes in The Professors: The 101 Most
Dangerous Academics in America that Finkelstein was
fired at New York University “because of pseudo –
scholarship and rantings against Jews and Israel. The
fact that Professor Finkelstein was hired after his antiSemitic statements had made him notorious reflects on
the university itself.”[64]
In other words, “pseudo-scholarship” is pseudoscholarship because Horowitz says so and because antiSemitism has been nuclearized by the Holocaust industry
and the Jewish establishment.
To give a classic example, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem
Post recently chastised Jewish political advisor David
6
Axelrod for saying that Sheldon Adelson is “greedy.”
Glick declared, “By calling Adelson ‘greedy,’ Axelrod was
channeling age-old anti-Semitic imagery, and by
inference engaging in it, in his assault against
Adelson.”[65]
In other words, everyone can be greedy—except Zionist
Jews and supporters of Israel. The word greedy is antiSemitic because Glick sets the parameters in such a way
that only Jews like herself can define what is and is not
anti-Semitism. I can understand why she did not want to
continue to respond to my queries.
Challenging the Holocaust Industry Is Costly
Just like the Pharisees in the first century who cast
people out of the synagogue if they dare say that Jesus
was the Messiah, Finkelstein was cast out of the
academia in 2007 because he stood against the Jewish
establishment. One of its most vocal representatives is
none other than Alan Dershowitz.
“It’s like death,” Finkelstein said when he was fired. “You
keep saying you’re going to die, but you never really
come to grips with it. And I can see I’m not going to get
another job. I haven’t yet fully absorbed it.”[66]
Right after he was banished from the academia,
Finkelstein resorted to a sort of spiritual healing. “I’m an
old fan of the Negro spirituals. I was going around
singing to myself, ‘Were you there when they crucified
my Lord? Were you there?’That’s how I felt. I was being
crucified by the end.”[67]
When I asked him whether he was a spiritual person or
not, he responded, “I am a ‘Negro Spirituals’ kind of
guy.”
How did Finkelstein end up losing his academic career?
What really happened? This will be discussed at another
time.
[1]
Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler:
How History is Bought, Packaged, and Sold (New York:
Routledge, 1999), 1.
[2]
Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections
on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
[3]
Quoted in Ben Harris, “Beached,” New York Magazine,
December 8, 2007.
[4]
http://normanfinkelstein.com/category/the-holocaustindustry/.
[5]
Yair Sheleg, “The Finkelstein Polemic,” Haaretz, March 30,
2001.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Gidi Weitz, “Israeli Holocaust Claims Lawyers Under Fire for
Raking in Millions,” Haaretz, March 1, 2010.
[10]
Stewart Ain, “Claims Conf. Fraud Put at $350,000; No
Survivor Funds Bilked,” The Jewish Week, February 9, 2010.
[11]
“Employee Found Guilty of $57 Million Shoah Restitution
Fraud,” Times of Israel, May 9, 2013.
[12]
Isi Leibler, “Scandals at the Claims Conference,” Jerusalem
Post, July 13, 2010.
[13]
Paul Berger, “How $57 Million Holocaust Fraud Unfolded at
Claims Conference,” Jewish Daily Forward, May 9, 2013.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Jean-Louis Panne et al, The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1999).
[16]
See for example Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow:
Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford
University
Press,
1987); The
Great
Terror:
A
Reassessment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
[17]
Herb
Keinon,
“PM:
Israel
to
Erect
Red
Army
Memorial,” Jerusalem Post, February 16, 2010; “PM Announces
memorial for Red Army’s Victory over Nazis,” Jerusalem Post,
October 15, 2010.
[18]
See for example Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The
Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books,
2007); R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of
the Germans after the Second World War (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2012).
[19]
For a historical survey on this subject, see for example Mark
David
Baer, The
Donme:
Jewish
Converts,
Muslim
Revolutionaries,
and
Secular
Turks (Stanford:
Stanford
University Press, 2009); Michelle Campos, Ottoman Brothers:
Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century
Palestine (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010); Pawel
Maciejko, The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist
movement, 1755-1816 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2011).
[20]
One survivor, Victor Gregg, still believes that it was a war
crime. Victor Gregg, “I Survived the Bombing of Dresden and
Continue to Believe It Was a War Crime,” Guardian, February
15, 2013. For historical accounts on Dresden and what
happened after the war, see for example Jorg Friedrich, The
Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945 (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2008); Giles MacDonogh, After the
Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation(New York:
Basic Books, 2007); James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The
Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 19441950 (Vancouver, Canada: Talonbooks, 2007).
[21]
See for example Mark Kukis, Voices from Iraq: A People’s
History, 2003-2009 (New York: Columbia University Press,
2011).
[22]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Xq3sGamLQ.
[23]
See Doug Bandow, “Death, Misery, and Debt: Iraq’s
Unintended Conquest of America,” Forbes, March 25, 2013;
Michael Kelley and Geoffrey Ingersoll, “The Iraq War Could Cost
More Than $6 Trillion,” Business Insider, March 14, 2013; “Iraq
War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion,
Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, March 14,
2013; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/iraq-waranniversary-idUSL1N0C5FBN20130314.
[24]
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, Goring to Tehran:
Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic
Republic (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2013), 2.
[25]
Daniel Tauber, “Thank You, George W. Bush!,” Jerusalem
Post, May 15, 2013.
[26]
Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 198.
[27]
Moti Bassok, “Israel to Seek another 1b euros Holocaust in
Reperations from Germany,” Haaretz, December 20, 2009.
[28]
“Holocaust
Survivors
Seek
$20B
in
Nazi-era
Policies,” CBSNews.com, November 15, 2011.
[29]
“Rabbi Who Claimed to Rescue Holocaust Torahs Arrested on
Fraud Charges,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 24, 2011.
[30]
Jeff Lunden, “‘Jewish Indiana Jones’ Charged with
Fraud,” Washington Post, August 25, 2011.
[31]
Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, 103.
[32]
Quoted in “Merkel: Germany Has ‘Everlasting Responsibility’
for the Holocaust,” European Jewish Press, January 27, 2013.
[33]
See for example Frank Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine: The
History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 19581962 (New York: Walker Publishing Company, 2010).
[34]
More frauds are being discovered almost every five years
about the Holocaust business. See for example “US charges 17 over
‘$42m theft’ of Holocaust funds,” BBC News, November 9, 2010; Paul Berger,
“Allegations of Fake Holocuast Claims Just Keep Growing,” Forward, June 8, 2011.
[35]
Menachem Rosensaft, “Holocaust Hawker is a Disgrace:
Profiting from Nazi Memorabilia should be Banned,” New York
Daily News, July 21, 2011.
[36]
“‘Holocaust’ Tax Dodger Jailed for Hiding Funds in UBS,” BBC
News, April 23, 2010.
[37]
William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A
History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990),
971.
[38]
Ilya Ehrenburg and Vasily Grossman, The Complete Black
Book of Russian Jewry (New Jersey: Transactions Publishers,
2009), 82.
7
[39]
Ibid., 82.
Ibid., 321.
[41]
Gerald Israel, The Jews in Russia (New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1975), 180.
[42]
Ehrenburg and Grossman, The Complete Black Book of
Russian Jewy, 82.
[43]
Max I. Dimont, Jews, God and History (New York: Penguin
Group, 1994), 395.
[44]
Michael Shermer and Alex Grubman, Denying History: Who
Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say
It? (Berkley: University of California Press, 2002), 117.
[45]
See
for
example
Mark
Weber,
“Jewish
Soap,” http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p217_Weber.html[46] D.
D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: W. W. Norton,
2002), 11.
[47]
Quoted in Joachim Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination,
1941-1945 (Capshaw, AL: Theses and Dissertations, 2001),
191.
[48]
“Nazi Soap Rumor during World War II,” Los Angeles Times,
May 16, 1981.
[49]
Hugh Orgel, “Holocaust Expert Rejects Charge that Nazis
Made Soap from Jews,” The Northern California Jewish Bulletin,
April 27, 1990; see also
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p217_Weber.html.
[50]
See for example Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret:
Suppression of the Truth about Hitler’s “Final Solution” (New
York: Henry Hold and Company, Inc., 1998), 82, 145.
[51]
Guy Walters, “The Head Nazi-Hunter’s Trail of Lies,” The
Sunday Times, July 19, 2009; see also Guy Walters,Hunting
Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and the Qeust to
Bring Them to Justice (New York: Broadway Books, 2009), 7778.
[52]
Walters, Hunting Evil, 77-100.
[53]
Deborah E. Lipstadt, “Simon Wiesenthal and the Ethics of
History,” Jewish Review of Books,
[40]
http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publications/detail/simonwiesenthal-and-the-ethics-of-history.
[54]
See Tom Segev, Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and
Legend (New York: Doubleday, 2010).
[55]
See for example Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret
Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Service (New York:
Grove/Atlanc, 1998); Michael Bar-Zohar, Mossad: The Greatest
Missions of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: HarperCollins,
2012);
Dan Raviv
and Yossi
Melman, Spies
Against
Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret War (New York: Levant
Books, 2012).
[56]
Dick Chapman, The Toronto Star, April 13, 1983; see also
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/w/walus.frank/press/toron
to-star.0483.
[57]
Chapman, The Toronto Star, April 13, 1983..
[58]
Daniel L. Schacter, Searching for Memory: The Brain, the
Mind, and the Past (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 99.
[59]
Chapman, The Toronto Star, April 13, 1983.
[60]
Quoted in Joe Nickell, Unsolved History: Investigating
Mysteries of the Past (Lexington: The University of Kentucky
Press, 2005), 47.
[61]
Quoted in Richard L. Berke, “Bush Panelist Out After Reports
of Anti-Jewish Ties,” NY Times, September 9, 1988.
[62]
See for example Tom Segev, Simon Wiesenthal, 349.
[63]
“Israel Won’t Extradite Polish Jew Accused of Post-WWII
Genocide,” Haaretz, July 7, 2005.
[64]
David Horowitz, The Professors: The The 101 Most
Dangerous Academics in America (WA: Regnery Publishing
Company, 2007), 174.
[65]
Caroline Glick, “Column One: Obama and the ‘Official
Truth,’” Jerusalem Post, May 15, 2013.
[66]
Quoted in Ben Harris, “Beached,” New York Magazine,
December 8, 2007.
[67]
Ibid.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/19/the-rise-and-fallof-the-holocaust-industry/
________________________________________________
The Curious Case of David Irving
By Jonas E. Alexis on June 5, 2013
“Whoever takes it upon himself to write an honest intellectual history of twentieth-century Europe
will need a strong stomach. But he will need something more. He will need to overcome his disgust
long enough to ponder the roots of this strange and puzzling phenomenon.”—Mark Lilla[1]
Arguably the most notorious and controversial historian
of our time is David Irving, who has been called “antiSemite,” a “neo-Nazi,” a “racist,” and a “Holocaust
denier.” Former news anchor and political commentator
Keith Olberman nominated Irving as one of the “world’s
worst” people in 2010.[2]
Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman call him “the most
historically
sophisticated
of
the
[Holocaust]
deniers.”[3] Richard J. Evans, a historian who was a
witness at the Holocaust trial, denounces Irving’s writing
as
“completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot
be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable
account of what he is talking or writing about…if we
mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover
the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a
representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a
historian.”[4] (Before the trial, however, Evans praised
Irving for digging up valuable materials from the
archive.) The ADL calls Irving “one of the most best
known Holocaust deniers in the world.”[5]
Other historians disagree with common opinion. Military
historian Sir John Keegan called Irving’s Hitler’s
War “certainly among the half dozen most important
books.”[6] Keegan admits, however, that Irving is a
controversial figure “who currently champions extreme
right-wing politics in Europe. Nonetheless, he is a
historian of formidable power, having worked in all major
German archives, discovered important deposits of
papers himself, and interviewed man of the survivors or
their families and intimates.”[7]
8
Keegan moves on to say, “No historian of the second
World War can afford to avoid Irving.”[8] Irving’s
biography of Goring, says Keegan, is “the most
illuminating”[9] among historical books.
In 1977, noted British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper,
though questioning Irving’s motives, wrote that
“no praise can be too high for his [Irving’s] indefatigable,
scholarly industry.”[10] Other historians such as Paul
Addison, John Charmley, and Rainer Zitelmann, praised
Irving’s work, although they do not like some of the
positions he has taken.
Deborah Lipstadt
A. J. P. Taylor
Noted British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote that Irving
possessed “an unrivaled industry” and a “good
scholarship”[11] when it comes to decoding the archives
to see what the records actually say. British historian
Paul Addison likewise noted that Irving possesses a
“colossus of research,”[12] while at the same time takes
issues with him on other matters.
Some historians seem to have some animosity towards
Irving precisely because Irving is not like the typical
historian who would posit extraordinary claims without
serious evidence from the archives. Like Gollum who
hates the ring of power and loves it at the same time in
J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, some historians
love Irving but hate him because he gives them a hard
time.
This point is demonstrated by historian Peter Hoffman,
who said:
“Mr. Irving’s constant references to archives, diaries and
letters, and the overwhelming amount of detail in his
work, suggest objectivity. In fact they put a screen
behind which a very different agenda is transacted… Mr.
Irving is a great obfuscator…Distortions affect every
important aspect of this book to the point of
obfuscation… It is unfortunate that Mr. Irving wastes his
extraordinary talents as a researcher and writer on
trivializing the greatest crimes in German history, on
manipulating historical sources and on highlighting the
theatrics of the Nazi era.”[13]
One of the people who found David Irving’s work as antiSemitic, however, is Deborah Lipstadt, who also accused
him of a “Holocaust denier.”
Lipstadt, whose greatest intellectual and historical
achievement is to call everyone who fundamentally
disagrees with her on aspects of the Holocaust a
“Holocaust denier,” tells us in her book History on
Trial that John Lukacs and Charles Sydnor
challenged Irving on his use of sources and found
them inaccurate.[14]
But saying some sources are inaccurate and documenting
where the inaccuracies lie is a big problem for Lipstadt.
She does not tell us where Lukacs and Sydnor found
Irving’s sources as “pretentious twadle”[15] at all. One is
asked to take their words at face value.
If that is the case, then one is surely justified in taking
Raul Hilberg’s comment on David Irving as well. Hilberg
noted: “If these people want to speak, let them. It only
leads those of us who do research to re-examine what
we might have considered as obvious. And that’s useful
for us.”[16]
Noted economic historian Robert Higgs came to similar
conclusions, believing that historical revisionism can
stimulate healthy discussion precisely because historians
are always looking for more evidence in order to give an
accurate or more consistent account of the past.[17]
Although several aspects of Hilberg’s history of the
Holocaust are questionable, as we shall demonstrate in a
future article, he indeed was willing to be open-minded
at least here in this assertion. Similarly, Jewish scholars
such as Murray Rothbard saw “revisionism” as a healthy
and skeptical way to approach history—not because
revisionists want to rewrite history and shape it in their
own way, but because historical evidence must be
presented for extraordinary claims.[18]
However, the Holocaust has become a sacred cow, so
much so that even debating certain aspects of it may be
considered as anti-Semitic. As Jewish historian Paula
Hyman of Yale pointed out in a 1980 New York
Times article,
“With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used
to forestall political criticism and suppress debate;
it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally
beleaguered people who can rely for their defense
only upon themselves. The invocation of the
suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis
9
often takes the place of rational argument, and is
expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of
current Israeli government policy.”[19]
Paula Hyman
But evidence and logical argument do not seem to be the
goal for Lipstadt. She excels at summoning ad
hominem argument and dismantling them with great
relish. In the arena of ideas, it seems that historical
documentation and logical consistency do not matter
much.
An easy way to disarm your opponent is to call him
names: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi, etc.
Once she convinced the media that Irving is indeed a
“Holocaust denier” and an anti-Semite, then no one
would bother to read Irving’s books to examine them for
their evidentiary foundations—or lack thereof.
More importantly, any historian who even has the
slightest doubt about Lipstadt’s version of the Holocaust
has to be an anti-Semite.[20] In a letter she sent to
the New York Times, she insinuated that Irving should
not be referred to as a historian but a Holocaust
denier[21]–although Irving has written at least 30 books
on World War II and Lipstadt only four.
Lipstadt’s tactic is quite cheap, but it is not a surprise,
since this has been one of the ideological weapons of the
Holocaust establishment. Some of the terms the
Holocaust establishment used—such as “anti-Semitism,”
“Holocaust denier,” “history denier,” haters of Jews”—are
pronounced so vaguely by so many people that when one
examines the logical and historical depth and breadth of
those words and the people who invoke them, they turn
out to be void of empirical evidence.
Michael Shermer and his co-author Alex Grobman begin
their book with the assertion that Ernst Zundel claimed
that “the Holocaust never happened.”[22]
The Encyclopedia
of
the
Holocaust declares
that
holocaust denial, among other things as “Denying the
Holocaust includes attempts to deny the fact that the
extermination of the Jews by the Nazis ever took place,”
“the tendentious and trivializing claim that the Holocaust
was not unique and that there had been precedents,
even precedents that had served as models for the
Holocaust.”[23] Even claims that “Jewish losses have been
grossly exaggerated”[24] maybe labeled Holocaust denial.
Michael Shermer
Shermer and his co-author know very well that
“Holocaust deniers” do not deny the Holocaust. In fact,
back in 1998 (long before Shermer got involved in
writing Denying History), Mark Weber, director of the
Institute for Historical Review, wrote in the L.A. Times:
“Revisionist scholars do not ‘deny’ the Holocaust. They
acknowledge that many hundreds of thousands of Jews
were killed and otherwise perished during the Second
World War as direct and indirect result of the brutally
anti-Jewish policies of Germany and its allies.”[25]
Weber continued to say, “Since its founding in 1978, the
IHR has steadfastly opposed bigotry of all kinds in its
efforts to promote greater public understanding of key
chapters of history.”[26]
In a similar vein, David Irving declared in a speech that
“there is no doubt at all that the Nazis in their twelveyear rule inflicted nameless horrors on large segment of
the population, including the Jews and other people,
whom they disliked.”[27]
Irving even goes so far as to say that the horrors
that happen during World War II on both sides of
the equation should be named “innocenticide—the
killing of innocent people in war….I am not Jewish,
I am not anti-Jewish, and I am not an antiSemite.”[28]
What is even more interesting is that Shermer debated
Weber on this issue and continued to misrepresent
“Holocaust deniers” in his book! Moreover, Shermer
never mentioned the debate in the book.[29] We will deal
with Shermer’sDenying History in more details in future
articles, but let us make a few points here.
No one is claiming that Jews weren’t persecuted by
Nazi Germany. What serious person would dispute
that historical fact? What some historians are
trying to emphasize, however, is: 1) that other
ethnic groups were also persecuted in Nazi
Germany; 2) that Hitler did not intend to
exterminate the entire Jewish people from Europe,
but intended to use forced migration; 3) that there
were individuals of Jewish descent in Nazi
Germany—and Hitler knew it; 4) that Nazi Germany
is one crime in history and there are others which
seem to be worse than the Third Reich; 5) that the
10
“six million killed” figure is inflated; and 6) the
claim that Jews were gassed in gas chambers is
false.
Mark Weber
Moreover, Michael Shermer and his co-author examine
the Holocaust in a way that brings up more questions
than it lays to rest. For them, anyone who dissents from
the view that at least five to six million Jews died at the
hands of Nazi Germany is a Holocaust denier. Shermer
implicitly reiterated that point when the Denying
Historycame out.[30]
For them, anyone who questions that people were
gassed in concentration camps is a Holocaust denier.
These two premises are essential to the Holocaust
establishment. One can say with a high degree of
certainty that they are the bible to the establishment.
In other words, if those premises turn out to be false,
then the Holocaust establishment has nothing to stand
upon. Moreover, it seems that a person is a Holocaust
denier whenever he does not ally with the Holocaust
establishment. Even Ernst Zundel, to my knowledge,
never denied that Jews suffered and died at the hands of
Nazi Germany. What he questions is “did six million
really die?”
If we take Jewish historians such as Yehuda Bauer or
Gerald Reitlinger or even Raul Hilberg at their words, the
answer to Zundel’s question is no.
Anyone with an ounce of historical sense would admit
that Jews, as well as homosexuals and Jehovah’s
Witnesses and Catholics and Protestants, suffered under
Nazi Germany. This point is certainly not in question. The
question that is controversial, as we shall see in
subsequent articles, is the six-million figure.
Jewish military historian Joel S. Hayward (Head of Air
Power Studies at King’s College), while he does not
espouse all of Irving’s work, wrote a lengthy letter
praising Irving for his historical documentation. I have
placed the letter in the footnote.[31]
Either all those historians who have praised Irving are
self-deluded, deceivers, or they believe that Irving has
something to say. Moreover, the closer one can get to
archival documents, the closer one can get to the truth
of what happened in history. Not all historians immerse
themselves in the archival data, but laboriously quote the
opinions of other historians in order to preserve a widely
held belief.
Here is a classic example. In his widely read book The
Third Reich at War, Richard Evans for example declares
that
“As soon as the German forces had entered the Soviet
Union and the various territories it controlled, followed by
the four SS Security Service Task Forces and subordinate
Task Units including a number of police battalions, they
had begun to carry out the orders Heydrich had given
them to kill civilian resisters, Communist Party officials
and Jews, along with all Jewish prisoners of war, in
order, as they thought, to eliminate any possibility of
resistance or subversion from ‘Jewish Bolsheviks.’”[32]
Richard J. Evans
As a Cambridge historian, Evans ought to be able to go
to the archives and tell us where to find the documents
backing up these extraordinary assertions. Instead, he is
quoting the opinions of Jewish historians such as Saul
Friedlander and Alfred Steim. Irving would not question
Evans as a historian, but David would say that historians
best serve the public and historical inquiry by backing up
their claims with archival documents.
As the noted Italian philosopher and historian Benedetto
Croce wrote decades ago, “documents and criticism, life
and thought, are the true source of history that is to say,
the two elements of historical synthesis…they form a
constituent part of it and are constituted by it. Hence the
idea of a history with its sources outside itself is another
fancy to be dispelled, together with that of history being
the opposite of chronicle.”[33]
What I have seen over the years is that there is a lack of
self-criticism among the Holocaust establishment; many
do not ask deeper questions or search for evidence for
existing claims. History does not work that way.
I was hoping that Shermer and his co-author Grobman
would challenge Irving’s main thesis in books such
as Hitler’s War, Churchill’s War, etc. Instead, Denying
History had very little interactions with Irving’s the
central themes. Like Deborah Lipstadt, Michael Shermer
believes that “Holocaust deniers” are anti-Semites!
When he was asked the question “Why do you think that
people deny the Holocaust then?,” Shermer responded,
“I think it really is mostly anti-Semitism, the belief in the
inordinate amount of power that Jews allegedly have in
the world. It’s a certain amount of just basic
tribalism.”[34]
What probably classifies Irving a “Holocaust denier” is
that he does not generally follow the mainstream
historian’s pattern of quoting his peers without historical
backbones. If you are going to make an extraordinary
claim, Irving insists on seeing it documented by primary
sources rather than the opinions of like-minded
historians.
For Irving, a healthy skepticism is required about any
claim regarding World War II, since the Germans were
11
obsessed about papers. “I am a thorn in the side of
certain people who have a vested interest in propagating
their own version of history,” which “has become big
business,” he said.[35] Irving calls those people “the
traditional enemy of the truth.”[36]
Why has Irving man stood by his views all these years?
Why haven’t Lipstadt and others disproved him wrong
in all his major views? It is because Irving goes by the
archives. He declared, “What is it that distinguishes my
books from all the rest?…I write my books from the
archives…why is it that other historians get mad as hell
when they hear my name? Why is it that they cheer
when I get thrown into prison…no court hearing, no
trial?”[37]
Primary sources, as critical historians have shown us, are
the most reliable evidence for extraordinary claims that
purport to be historical.[38] Irving pursues that traditional
method, which was followed by celebrated historians
such as V. H. Galbraith, who believed that “the principal
value of studying history lay in a direct encounter with
the primary sources; by comparison the interpretations
of historians were fundamentally transient.”[39]
Irving continued to say that many historians
“rely on second hand sources, which you can get
away
with….What
did
Hitler
know
about
Auschwitz? ‘Of course he knew, he was the one
who gave the order.’ And I said, ‘What’s the
evidence?’ Professor [X] says that I had it from
professor [Y]. Professor [Y] says that I had it from
professor [Z]. Professor [Z] says I had it from
professor [X]. So the circle is complete. They’ve all
been quoting each other like dogs running around
a circle…The world’s historians are ashamed of
David Irving—and they should be ashamed.”[40]
Irving is not against secondary sources, for information
of course could be gleaned from those sources. However,
he
is
against
authoritative
statements
without
extraordinary evidence.
Regardless of what you think about the man, he is right
in line with the Western tradition in digging into the
archives. Moreover, you put him behind bars today
(hoping that he will change his mind) and he comes right
back, fresh and ready to fight against what he calls “the
traditional enemy of the truth.”
O Irving, Where Is Thy Credentials?
The point is also brought up that Irving cannot be
considered a professional historian since he does not
have an academic degree; although Irving was a student
at the University of London, he never completed his
education due to financial difficulties.
Hayward also raised the point that if we are going to
dismiss Irving on his lack of an academic diploma, then
we are in deep trouble. The fact is that although some
historians have degrees in their field, many do not. Raul
Hilberg has a B.A. in political science, an M.A. and a
doctorate in Public Law and Government.
Michael Shermer has his Bachelor’s in psychology, his
Master’s in experimental psychology, and his doctorate in
the history of science, not in the history of World War II.
His doctoral thesis was “Heretic-Scientist: Alfred Russell
Wallace and the Evolution of Man: A Study on the Nature
of Historical Change,” which later was published as a
book entitled, In Darwin’s Shadow: The Life and Science
of Alfred Russel Wallace.
Benjamin A. Valentino’s B.A. and Ph.D. degrees are in
political science, yet he wrote the popular book Final
Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth
Century. R. J. Rummel’s B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees
are all in political science, yet many of his books focus on
genocide in the twentieth century. Daniel Jonah
Goldhagen’s B.A. degree is in social studies, and his M.A.
and Ph.D. degrees are in Government.
Raul Hilberg
Thus, according to the fallacious standards used by those
critics, Shermer is not qualified to write Denying History.
Neither are Rummel, Valentino, or Hilberg. The argument
is untenable and demonstrably ridiculous.
As we have implicitly established in the previous article,
the power of an idea does not lie on the degrees a
person may have accumulated for himself, but must rely
on historical accounts, logical consistency, explanatory
power, explanatory scope, and historical context. There
have to be external checks and balances in history (as in
science) that are not contingent on the credentials of the
scientist or historian. [41] Historians must stay away
from ad hoc hypotheses andred herring as much as
possible.[42]
While one should always appreciate a person’s field or
fields of study, one should never underestimate the
power of a worldview and should always be skeptical
about alternative views, pressing proponents of those
views to back up their claims with empirical data. Put
simply, the refutation of an argument cannot solely be
contingent upon one’s credentials.
Michael Faraday, a chemist and physicist who contributed
greatly to the field of electromagnetism, had very little
formal education. Charles Darwin’s only degree was in
theology; he studied the sciences in his spare time, but
he never got a degree in any scientific field.
Alfred Russell Wallace, the man who was the basis of
Shermer’s Ph.D. thesis, never got a degree whatsoever.
Charles Lyell, one of the men who revolutionized the
understanding of the age of the earth with his Principles
of Geology, got his B.A. degree in classics. He studied
geology intensively after he became a lawyer but again
he never got a degree in the sciences. Even Stephen Jay
Gould acknowledges that “Charles Lyell was a lawyer by
profession.”[43]
James Hutton was not trained in geology, but in medicine
and agriculture; he is known today largely for his
theoretical model in the field of geology. Herbert
12
Spencer, who coined the term “survival of the fittest,”
was a self-taught engineer.[44]
In our time, Thomas Sowell was trained as an economist,
having a bachelor’s, master’s and a Ph.D. degrees in the
field. Yet today is widely known as a social theorist, a
political philosopher, a cultural and intellectual historian,
etc. Barbara Tuchman was a self-taught Jewish historian.
The question at hand is quite simple: can we use the
fallacious argument that these people ought to be
dismissed simply because they never had a formal
degree in their particular field? Is the degree more
important than reasonable arguments and evidence?
[1]
Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (New
York: New York Review of Books, 2001), 198.
[2]
“Keith
Olbermann’s
‘Worst
Person’
–
David
Irving,” www.youtube.com, 09/16/10.
[3]
Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History, 49.
[4]
Richard J. Evans, “David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial:
Electronic Edition,” Holocaustdenialontrial.org.
[5]
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extre
mism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item
=irving
[6]
D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 2002), 1.
[7]
John Keegan, The Battle for History (New York: Vintage
Books, 1995), 50.
[8]
Ibid., 51.
[9]
Ibid., 58.
[10]
Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a
Holocaust Denier (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005),
23.
[11]
Ibid., 23.
[12]
Ibid., 22.
[13]
Quoted in Richard J. Evans, Lying about Hitler: History, the
Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (New York: Basic Books,
2001), 11.
[14]
Lipstadt, History on Trial, 23
[15]
Ibid., 23.
[16]
Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, 71.
[17]
Robert Higgs, “Why Do So Many People Automatically and
Angrily Condemn Historical Revisionsim?,” History News
Network, December 8, 2011.
[18]
Murray N. Rothbard, “Revisionism for our Time,” Ludwig von
Mises Institute, June 29, 2007.
[19]
Paula Hyman, “New Debate on the Holocaust,” NY Times,
September 14, 1980.
[20]
Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Assault on
Truth (New York: Penguin Books, 1994), 215.
[21]
Deborah Lipstadt, “Those Who Deny the Holocaust Deny
History,” N Y Times, March 4, 2009.
[22]
Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 1.
[23]
Israel Gutman, “Denial of the Holocaust,” Israel Gutman,
ed. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1990), 681-682.
[24]
Ibid., 682.
[25]
Mark Weber, “Revisionists and the Holocaust,” LA Times,
March 15, 1998.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgGP_evkvOk.
[28]
Ibid.
[29]
The debate can be viewed on
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PGhHMTbhTY.
[30]
http://hdot.org/en/learning/podcasts/shermer.
[31]
Hayward said,
“I HAVE READ the discussion on Irving with great interest. As a
professional historian who has written a lot about Holocaust
Revisionism in general and Irving in particular (and plenty on
WW2), I can speak with some confidence about the issues
raised….It is certainly true he never completed his Bachelor
degree at the University of London (where he read Physics), let
alone completed a post-graduate degree or Doctorate. It is also
true that he has never held a university position. However, if
those grounds are sufficient to call his scholarship into question,
then they must also call into question the scholarship of almost
all the important and influential writers of Holocaust history
from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, upon which supporters of
received opinion on the Holocaust still rely. For example, the
late Gerald Reitlinger, author of the very influential and stillcited ‘The Final Solution: the Attempt to Exterminate the
Jews of Europe’, was an art dealer with no academic
qualifications. Yet Reitlinger’s book had a profound impact on
both scholarly and popular perceptions of what happened to
Eastern European Jews. A number of those still writing on the
Holocaust also lack the ‘proper’ credentials. Georges Wellers,
a prominent French writer on the Holocaust and a bitter
opponent of Revisionism, is the former director of a medical
research laboratory. He has no historical training. Jean-Claude
Pressac, author of several ‘seminal’ books on the Auschwitz gas
chambers, has a diploma in pharmacy but no historical training
whatsoever. Walter Laqueur, former Kibbutznik and author of
many well-received and best-selling books on the Holocaust and
modern European history, may be an academic icon in Israel
(the Jerusalem Post has produced glowing full-page feature
articles on him, for instance), and he may head his own institute
and edit his own journal, but he has never completed a
university degree. Clearly, if Irving is unworthy of the title
‘historian’, then these Holocaust writers (none of whom has
written anywhere the number of books Irving has) are also
unworthy. If Irving’s works are to be discounted or treated with
unusual circumspection because of his lack of formal credentials,
then so are theirs. Do Irving’s highly-partisan critics care that
their own favourite historians of the Holocaust lack ‘legitimacy';
that, like Irving and his ilk, they are not ‘real’ historians?
“OF COURSE, titles and qualifications mean little, as I wish
Irving’s critics would realise. An author’s degree of formal
historical training and position within the academic world are
unimportant if he or she has employed sound methodological
principles. Countless excellent works have been written by socalled ‘amateurs’ whose careful and systematic piecing together
of evidence has cast new light on their objects of inquiry.
University-dropout Laqueur, one of my favourite historians, is a
case in point. His scholarship is usually terrific and I buy most
books he writes…Further, in the course of my doctoral and
subsequent research on aspects of Third Reich history, I worked
in or obtained documents from several of the archives
frequented by Irving, including the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz,the
Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv in Freiburg im Breisgau, the
Dokumentationsarchiv des oesterreichischen Widerstandes in
Vienna, the National Archives in Washington and the United
States Air Force Historical Research Agency. I have thus been
able to check his sources and they way he used them.
Therefore, I can say with confidence that I am as well positioned
to comment on Irving’s scholarship as anyone. My judgement: I
certainly don’t agree with all his arguments and conclusions, and
strongly disagree with some, but I can’t find serious flaws in his
methodology and I have never found a single example of
deliberate falsification of evidence. Yes, I have studied all the
books and articles that attempt to prove that he has fiddled with
sources, but they are generally weak and unpersuasive,
reflecting the authors’ own biases, preconceptions and, saddest
of all, lack of familiarity with the documents they purport to
analyse. Deborah Lipstadt’s book is hopeless. Very poor
indeed. Gerald Fleming’s Hitler und die Endloesung; Es ist des
Führers Wunsch (revised ed., 1992?) is easily the best of the
anti-Irving books, but even that ultimately fails to prove
falsification or improper consideration of evidence. Regardless of
his attention-seeking antics and his tendency to say dumb,
insensitive and sometimes inaccurate things to the media (which
don’t appear in his books, thank goodness), Irving is a
researcher, biographer and military historian of outstanding
aptitude. Many of his works are excellent. (By the way, none of
them is specifically on the Holocaust or even deals with it at
length.)” Joel S. Hayward, “David Irving, the Third Reich and the
Holocaust,” letter published by David Irving in 1998.
[32]
Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War, 1939-1945 (New
York: Penguin Books, 2008), 218.
13
[33]
Benedetto
Croce, Theory
and
History
of
Historiography (Toronto: The University of Toronto Libraries,
2011), introduction.
[34]
http://hdot.org/en/learning/podcasts/shermer.
[35]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgGP_evkvOk.
[36]
Ibid.
[37]
Ibid.
[38]
See for example Jenny L. Presnell, The InformationLiterature Historian (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007),
5.
[39]
John Tosh, Historians on History (London: Pearson Education
Limited, 2009), 19.
[40]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwp7tVZuXKM.
[41]
For an exposition on this, see Peter Lipton, Inference to the
Best Explanation (New York: Routledge, 2004).
[42]
Christopher
Behan
McCullagh, Justifying
Historical
Descriptions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984);
Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources;
Jenny L. Presnell, The Information-Literature Historian: A Guide
to Research for History Students (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2007); Kathleen Troup and Anna Green, ed., The Houses
of History: A Critical Reader in Twentieth-Century History and
Theory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999);
Benedetto
Croce, Theory
of
History
and
Historiography (Toronto: The University of Toronto Libraries,
2011).
[43]
Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1977), 149-150.
[44]
For a biography of Spencer, see for example David
Duncan, Life and Letters of Hebert Spencer (London: Methuen
and Company, 1908).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/05/the-curious-caseof-david-irving-part-i/
______________________________________________________________________
Final Solution? Or Inner-Historian incest?
By Jonas E. Alexis, April 11, 2014
the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish people, remains
uncertain,” but added,
“After the beginning of World War II, anti-Jewish policy
evolved into a comprehensive plan to concentrate and
eventually annihilate European Jewry.”
Since the Holocaust establishment has yet to find
archival documents for the “Final Solution” thesis,
German historian Peter Longerich hopelessly tries to
answer the historical puzzle by saying that the “Final
Solution” was one of those unwritten orders in the Third
Reich.[2]
In another Holocaust encyclopedia which is edited by
Walter Laqueur and others, we read that
“Neither Roman Catholic nor the Protestant churches, nor
even the International Red Cross, thought that they had
been guilty of major sins of commission or omission as
far as the murder of Jews was concerned. There was
hesitation to punish the guilty and to reward those who
had helped victims.”[3]
The sources and examples? The encyclopedia does not
tell us. The reason is simple: the claim is demonstrably
false. In fact, both Catholics and Protestants were in
Christopher Browning
agreement when it came to protecting Jews from
Historian Christopher R. Browning, who is one of the gate
physical persecutions.[4]
keepers of the Holocaust establishment, in an entry in
Speaking of some of the policies in Germany at the time,
the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, defines the Final
Augustine
Cardinal
Hlond
of
Poland
wrote
Solution as
unapologetically:
“the Nazis’ comprehensive program to solve their ‘Jewish
“I warn against that moral stance, imported from abroad
question’ by murdering every Jew in Europe. Initiated by
that is basically and ruthlessly anti-Jewish. It is contrary
Adolf Hitler in the summer of 1941 in the euphoria of his
to Catholic ethics. One may love one’s own nation more,
greatest successes and his seemingly imminent victory
but one may not hate anyone. Not even Jews…it is
over the Soviet Union, the ‘Final Solution’ was the
forbidden to demolish a Jewish store, damage their
culmination of a long evolution of Nazi Jewish policy—
merchandise, break windows, or throw things at their
“from Hitler’s earliest articulation of a solution to the
homes.
‘Jewish question’ in 1919, through the Nazi attempts to
“One should stay away from the harmful moral influence
coerce Jewish emigration in the 1930s, to the schemes
of Jews, keep away from their anti-Christian culture…But
for mass expulsion after the outbreak of war, and, finally,
it is forbidden to assault, beat up, maim, or slander Jews.
the leap to mass murder with the Einsatzgruppen assault
One should honor Jews as human beings and
on the Russian Jewry in 1941.”[1]
neighbors…When divine mercy enlightens a Jew to
These assertions look nice on paper and will make
sincerely accept his and our Messiah, let us greet him
bestsellers, but Browning cannot provide historical
into our Christian ranks with joy.”[5]
documentation proving that Hitler or the Nazis wanted to
exterminate every single Jew in Europe.
Browning, leaving history behind and embracing his own
In a less dogmatic tone, the United States Holocaust
madness, declares that Hitler
Museum declared that “The origin of the ‘Final Solution,’
“fantasized about publicly hanging every Jew in Germany
and leaving the bodies dangling until they stank.”[6]
14
Once again, Browning does not provide a shred of
reputable evidence for this claptrap.
Jewish historian Norman F. Cantor admits that there was
not a single statement from Hitler which explicitly talked
about the extermination of all Jews of Europe, but
explains that the reason we don’t have such a paper is
because “top people in government or big corporations
who are ordering underlings to do something nasty
normally do not put it in writing.”[7]
That argument suffers badly for the very reason that if
no such a document exists, then there is no need to
dogmatically assert that Hitler wanted to exterminate all
the Jews of Europe in just about every single popular
book. That certainly would not work in a court of law. If
Mr. X accuses Mr. Y of stealing his wallet, then Mr. X is
under the obligation to provide some convincing evidence
for the claim. If Mr. X declares, “I don’t have evidence; I
just have a feeling.” Would that work?
Moreover, if there is not a trace of evidence for the
assertion, then one is entitled to say that the reason
evidence does not exist is because there was no such
order in the first place. Hitler would have been one of the
dumbest leaders if his intention was to hang every single
Jew in Europe or Germany and then promoted those
same Jews who had proven to be brave in battle. Hitler
even
“wanted Jewish Mischlinge who had proven themselves in
battle and who had been discharged recalled to active
duty. If they continued to prove themselves, Hitler would
declare them deutschblutig…
“Moreover, Hitler had sanctioned a decree that allowed
Jewish Mischlinge who had died in battle to receive
the deutschblutig declarations posthumously…”[8]
Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California seems
to have put the final nail in the coffin when he declares,
“It seems to be that the evidence for a planned murder
of all Jews before the eve of World War II is
unpersuasive, particularly given the pervasive chaos of
Nazi decision making.
“Some of those who argue that such a plan existed seem
more motivated by indignation than evidence—by a
desire to make the charge of premeditated, first-degree
murder stick, as it were.”[9]
Yet since no document exists for the “Final Solution”
proposition, some historians try to sneak in through
other means. Historian Ian Kershaw, in a book that has
been highly praised by the Holocaust Looney Tunes
(Deborah Lipstadt,
Saul
Friedlander,
Christopher
Browning, etc.), tries to defend the Final Solution thesis
by saying that Hitler’s term “removal” may actually mean
“extermination” or “annihilation.”[10]
Once again, the thesis does not work for the very reason
that if Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews of
Europe, then it makes no sense for him to make
distinctions between good Jews and bad Jews.
Furthermore, the Final Solution thesis is incompatible
with archival documents and diaries. For example, in the
Goebbels diaries, we see Hitler saying in 1935 that “there
should be no excesses against the Jews and no
persecutions of ‘non-Aryans.’”[11] Goring likewise wrote,
“I have discussed this with the Führer himself now; we
have been able to use one Jew two years longer in
Vienna, and another in photographic research, because
they have certain things that we need and that can be of
the utmost benefit to us at the present. It would be utter
madness for us to say now: ‘He’ll have to go.
“He was a magnificent researcher, a fantastic brain, but
his wife is Jewish, and he can’t be allowed to stay at the
University,’ etc. The Führer has made similar exceptions
in the arts all the way down to operetta level; he is all
the more likely to make exceptions where really great
projects or researchers are concerned.”[12]
Kersaw, quoting Hitler, wrote, “The Jew [must know]
that we’re the bosses here; if he behaves well, he can
stay—if not, then out with him.”[13]
This statement proves accurate since Hitler’s own family
doctor, Eduard Bloch, was Jewish. Hitler even called
Bloch “a noble Jew.”[14] When Germany occupied
Austria in 1938, Hitler specifically placed Bloch
“under the protection of the Gestapo, as Linz’s only Jew:
Dr. and Mrs. Bloch were allowed to remain in their home
undisturbed until all the formalities regarding their
emigration were settled. Without interference from the
authorities they could sell their large, beautiful home for
a fair price, and they were allowed to keep their money—
extraordinary privileges at that time.”[15]
In 1940, Bloch moved to the United States and died in
1945 in New York.[16]
Hitler “left several Mischlinge officers at their posts
without subjecting them to any persecution.”[17]
What is even more shocking to some is that Heinrich
Himmler
“helped a Jew, Professor Fritz Pringsheim, leave a
concentration camp and escape Germany. Several
officials had old comrades of Jewish ancestry. They had
15
seen the common humanity of German-Jewish soldiers
who fought bravely and died in World War I.
“Moreover,
many
had
grown
up
with
Jews
and Mischlinge and had come to view them as friends
and colleagues—some were even relatives or lovers—and
they valued these relationships more than they did their
anti-Semitism. Hitler seemed to respect the opinions of
these
men
when
they
endorsed
a
particular Mischlinge for an exemption.
“For example, throughout the early 1930s, several
people brought the Litzmann family’s grandchildren of
the famous General Karl Litzmann, Staatsrat and Nazi
Party member. Litzmann had two grandsons who were
quarter-Jews according to Nazi law.
“Hitler allowed their mother to stay in the Party and her
children to remain officers although her husband was
aMischlinge.
“One of the grandsons, Walter Lehwe-Litzmann, attained
the rank of colonel in the Luftwaffe, served as the
Luftflotte 5 (Air Fleet 5) operations adjutant to General
Hans-Jurgen Stumpff in Norway, and successfully flew
160 missions with the Ju-88 twin-engine medium
bomber. For his accomplishments, he received the
German-Cross in Gold and the Ritterkreuz.”[18]
situ was not practicable, as the equipment was not
adequate.
“Since the evacuation of the extermination camps in the
East, there were no installations with the capacity for
such a large-scale operation, and in any case it would
have had to be preceded by massive convoys during
which
many
escapes
would
have
been
unavoidable…These methods of mass-liquidation were in
any case all difficult to put into operation.”[24]
Berben went on to note that the only place where the
Final Solution existed was in the mind of the prisoners
who, when the war was getting closer to the end, began
to think that the S.S. would eventually liquidate
them.[25]
\
Ian Kershaw
These facts complicate things for those who propose that
Nazi Germany intended to liquidate all European Jews.
That is one reason why things like that do not make it
into popular books. After all, why complicate things?
It is a matter of fact that many Jews were sent to
concentration camps for various reasons, and between
1943 and 1944, many Jews were being persecuted, but
at the same time, many others were exempt from
persecution.[19]
Rigg documents that “Hitler took his responsibility to
grant
exemptions
seriously.”[20] Thousands
of
Mischlinge remained in the armed forces because Hitler
took that step; from 1934 to 1939, Hitler “allowed
several to remain at their posts.”[21]
In addition, “between 1938 and 1939, Hitler brought
several of the Mischlinge he had discharged back into the
ranks, declaring them along with those Mischlinge who
had remained on active duty deutschblutig,”[22] and
around the same time, he “reactivated several
hundred Mischlinge officers.”[23]
Even when Germany was close to losing the war in 1945,
Paul Berben, a historian who was a prisoner of war in
World War II and who wrote Dachau: The Official History,
noted that the Final Solution thesis could not work for
several reasons:
“If the S.S. were to start using machine-guns and flamethrowers, the result would be general revolt and attack
on the boundary fences, a terrible slaughter and the
flight of thousands of prisoners. To gas the inhabitants in
The “Final Solution” thesis weakens further when the
record shows that Hitler kept many Mischlinge scientists,
pilots, engineers, and others in Nazi Germany without
persecuting them. Erhard Milch, a Mischlinge,
“became one of the most powerful men in the Luftwaffe
and the Third Reich. In 1933, when Hitler wanted to hire
the half-Jew Milch to help build an air force, he told him,
‘Now look, I haven’t known you for very long, but you’re
a man who knows his job, and we have few in the Party
who know as much about the air as you.
“That’s why the choice has fallen on you. You must take
the job. It’s not a question of the Party, as you seem to
think—it’s a question of Germany and Germany needs
you.’ Milch admitted later that this talk with Hitler
convinced him to take the job.”[26]
16
Historian Peter Fritzsche, falling into the Final Solution
trap, writes that by 1940-1941, the Nazis aspired “to
seize and murder all Jews in Europe.”
To support this risible assertion, he quotes Hermann
Goring, saying, “In the final analysis, [the war] is about
whether the German and Aryan prevails here, or whether
the Jew rules the world, and that is what we are fighting
for out there.”[27] What does that have to do with the
Final Solution?
Fritzsche and others can easily prove their point by
digging into the archives to find reliable sources for the
Final Solution story. Yet, like many historians who
believe in the story, he cites others of the same mind,
with no one offering up any evidence to support the
popular assertions. Fritzsche and the Holocaust
establishment have fallen in to what David Irving calls
“inner-historian incest”:
“For thirty years our knowledge of Hitler’s part in the
atrocity had rested on inter-historian incest. Many
people, particularly in Germany and Austria, had an
interest in propagating the version that the order of one
madman originated the entire tragedy. Precisely when
this order was given was, admittedly, left vague.”[28]
After years of desperation, historian Ian Kershaw seems
to have admitted defeat. He declares that “the
presumption that a single, explicit written order had ever
been given had long been dismissed by most
historians.”[29]
The sad fact is that the “Final Solution” thesis, after
years of media incubation and propaganda, has reached
a point where it is almost impossible to raise thoughtful
questions about the issue.
David Turner of the Jerusalem Post wrote that “Hitler’s
intention was to achieve a final solution to a Jewish
Problem born two millennia before, with the first century
Pauline and gospel texts.”[30]
For Turner, there was a serious “effort to exterminate
each and every Jew alive in the twentieth century,” which
was part of the “magnitude of the Final Solution to the
Jewish Problem.”[31]
That frightening thought does seem to keep Turner up at
night. (Turner is currently writing a book on this subject,
and I have interacted with him before. The exchange can
be found here.)
Turner continues to state that the anti-Jewish attitude in
the gospels of Matthew and John culminated in the “Final
Solution.”[32] The reason for this, he argues, is that
people simply hate Jews.
Turner even argues that Chrysostom’s writings provided
some of the basis for Nazi Germany. He quotes
Chrysostom in saying that “the synagogue is a brothel, a
den of scoundrels.”[33]
Turner is not alone in monkey business. When John J.
Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s book The Israel
Lobbycame out, neoconservative and classicist Bruce
Thornton of Stanford declared that not only is the book
promoting another version of The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion, but Harvard, where Walt teaches, has been
indirectly promoting another final solution of the
Jews![34]
Some believe this Final Solution thesis because they
have seen no other alternatives and perhaps this is what
they have been taught.
Sarah Gordon, an honest historian, agreed with the Final
Solution thesis, but based her point on Raul Hilberg and
the
Holocaust
establishment
such
as
Lucy
Dawidowicz.[35]
Dawidowicz argued that Hitler made the decision to
exterminate the Jews in the 1920s, but she could not
provide the evidence.[36]
Dawidowicz protested against historian Norman Davies at
Stanford because he challenged the prevailing notion of
the Holocaust. Davies actually upset the Holocaust status
quo by saying,
“The western democracies never actually fought the
USSR and Stalin could never compete in the popular
mind with Hitler as ‘the evil enemy.’ For example, the
Jewish Holocaust was barely discussed for two decades
after the war but made enormous inroads into western
consciousness from the 1960s exactly because it fitted so
snugly into the existing scheme. It has rightly become an
emblematic episode of inhumanity but it also confirms
our preference for one, supremely evil enemy.
“In some countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence
yet Gulag denial is not even on the agenda. The British
War Crimes Act applies exclusively to crimes committed
‘by Germans or on German-occupied territory.’
17
“And the European parliament, when recently asked to
grant a minute’s silence in honour of 22,000 allied
officers shot by the NKVD (the communist secret police),
refused.
“And all historians would agree that the Third Reich was
defeated by the effective co-operation of East and West.
Yet nobody shows much enthusiasm to quantify relative
contributions or anything more precise than ‘Soviet
forces inflicted more German losses than the western
armies combined.’
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
“German sources, however, are more forthcoming. They
state unequivocally that 75-80% of Germany’s losses
were incurred on the eastern front. The implication is
that all other contributions added up to a maximum of
20-25%.
“Of this, the Americans might claim 15%, and the British
10% Western apologists argue that the Soviet Union
received enormous logistical supplies from the West, that
the Red Army was helped by the western bombing
offensive and the war at sea, and that other aspects,
from industrial production to intelligence, should not be
overlooked.
“Yet the fact remains: fighting is the essential activity in
war. And as an adversary the Red Army greatly excelled
all its western counterparts. Suffice it to say that in one
single operation in 1944, when demolishing the Army
Group Mitte in Byelorussia, Marshal Rokossovsky
destroyed a collection of Wehrmacht divisions equivalent
to the entire German deployment on the western front.
“In fact the D-Day landings would be the sole operation
fought by western armies that might scrape into the
war’s top 10 battles. Not surprisingly, both military and
civilian casualties in eastern Europe reached a similar
titanic scale. Here one must beware of the notoriously
false slogan of ‘20 [million] Russian war dead.’
“The accepted figure is 27 [million] not 20 [million], it
refers to ‘Soviet citizens’ not to Russians, and includes
millions of victims killed by the Stalinist regime during
and after the war. Even so, the levels were staggering.
The Red Army lost up to 13m, and still managed to
prevail…
“In reality, Soviet communism was as hostile to western
democracy as it was to fascism. Stalinist practices,
however, undermine the entire moral framework within
which the allied cause is perceived. It is not possible to
maintain that the allies were fighting for untrammeled
good if the largest of their members was habitually given
to mass murder.
“Before 1941, enough was known about Stalin’s
concentration camps, purges, show trials and state terror
that western leaders had no excuse for ignorance. Yet
such was the desperate need for Soviet military
assistance that all western suspicions were suspended.
“During the war, there were thousands in London and
Washington who had witnessed Stalin’s camps and
murders. But they were effectively silenced by war
censorship, and sometimes by military discipline.
“Officers caught discussing what they had heard about
Stalin’s crimes were threatened with courts martial. Even
Churchill, who had been a strident anti-Bolshevik and
who admitted to ‘supping with the devil,’ warmed to the
blandishments of success.
“When victory finally came, very few were willing to
count the political and moral cost. At the Nuremberg
trials, three categories of criminal conduct were
established: crimes against peace (i.e., wars of
aggression); war crimes and crimes against humanity.
By any reckoning, Stalin’s regime deserved to stand trial
on all counts.
“It had been expelled from the League of Nations for
crimes against peace. While defeating the Wehrmacht, its
forces had perpetrated numberless atrocities. And in
pursuing policies of mass murder, mass deportation,
repressions and ethnic cleansing the Soviet state had
manifestly entered the realm of crimes against humanity.
“Yet in the victory euphoria, they need not have feared a
public reprimand, let alone a formal accusation. When
German defence lawyers at Nuremberg protested on this
score, they were cut short by the chairman, Sir Geoffrey
Lawrence. ‘We are here to judge major war criminals,’ he
reminded the court, ‘not to try the prosecuting
powers.’”[37]
Norman Davies
Davies, who is not an obscure historian, was certainly
asking for trouble. Dawidowicz and another Jewish
historian by the name of Abraham Brumberg were
mobilized to get him fired. Davies eventually moved to
England, where he taught history at the University of
London and later became a fellow at Oxford.
Dawidowicz and Brumberg were able to attack Davies
precisely because they are the big boss in the Holocaust
industry. They do not have to produce historical
scholarship. They just have to denounce or dismiss or
sometimes attack virtually any individual who does not
subscribe to the Holocaust industry.
Albert S. Lindemann declares that Dawidowicz’s War
Against the Jews “must be faulted for the dubious tenor
and simplistic nature of its background chapters.”
Moreover, though the chapters of her book “may be
considered effective” to some, “as scholarship, where
balance and insight are the ideals, they fall short.”[38] In
short, Dawidowicz certainly falls into the category of
18
Jewish historians who tend to exaggerate in order to
support an ideology.
Where does she get her ideology? Let us hear from
Dawidowicz herself:
“Our sense of being Jews and therefore being different
from non-Jews were nurtured in me and my sister from
infancy. We were raised to know that the world was
divided into two irreconcilable groups: We and They.
They were the non-Jews, who hated us and wished to
destroy us. But We will prevail, largely because of our
moral virtues and mental endowments.”[39]
There is a striking parallel between Dawidowicz and
Rabbi
Menachem
Schneerson. Rabbi
Schneerson postulated before he passed away:
“the soul of the Jew is different than the soul of the nonJew…The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish
person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us
differentiate.’
“Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in
which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we
have a case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally
different species.
“This is what needs to be said about the body: the body
of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from
the body of [members] of all nations of the world … The
difference in the inner quality between Jews and nonJews is “so great that the bodies should be considered as
completely different species.
What we are seeing here is that both Dawidowicz and
Schneerson drink from the same Talmudic well. It also
proves that Dawidowicz was acting as an intellectual
Talmudist. Yet she never seemed to think that this “We
and They” thesis could be the cause of anti-Jewish
reaction throughout the centuries.
This “We and They” dichotomy is pronounced quite
vividly in the theological text as well—the Talmud—where
the goyim are referred to as sub-human, and the “We”
referred to as God’s favorite.[40]
How is it that Dawidowicz, who believes that Hitler
intended to exterminate all the Jews of the world, never
saw that that conflict could may well lie at the feet of the
Talmudic reasoning? The answer, of course, is not that
difficult.
Lucy Dawidowicz
If there is really a final solution, then we must consider
what the neoconservatives/neo-Bolsheviks/Zionists have
done in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and
now in the Ukraine—and they do not think they owe the
world any explanation. When Thomas Friedman of
the New York Times realized that the world actually knew
that Bush went to war on a false pretense, he then went
to his ideological platform and said,
“As far as I’m concerned, we do not need to find any
weapons of mass destruction to justify this war…. Mr.
Bush doesn’t owe the world any explanation for missing
chemical weapons.”[43]
How genius! A war that will cost the American people at
least six trillion dollars does not need explanation. A war
that has already cost thousands upon thousands of lives
both in the Middle and elsewhere need no further
investigation.
“An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul.
Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul
comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul
stems from holiness.
“As has been explained, an embryo is called a human
being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the
difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo
can be understood.…
“the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A
Jew was not createdas a means for some [other]
purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance
of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the
Jews.
“The important things are the Jews, because they do not
exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the
divine] aim. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists
only for the sake of the Jews.”
David Turner
Historian Richard B. Bosworth of the University of
Western Australia said that Dawidowicz was a staunch
Zionist who ended up writing for neoconservative
magazines such as Commentary and “acting as a
spokesperson for conservative and patriotic JewishAmerican and Israeli causes.”[41]
Virtually no historian of good reputation was able to meet
Dawidoicz’s standard. A. J. P. Taylor, David Irving, “all
Polish historiography, and even Hannah Arendt (for
claiming in Eichmann in Jerusalem that some Jews
collaborated)—none of these met her standards….In the
face of Israel’s history, all other nations are mere
pretenders.”[42]
To sum up, the historical point is still on the table: if a
person claims that there was a document showing that it
was Hitler’s intention to exterminate all the Jews, then
that document must be presented. The burden of proof is
on the person making the statement.
No one should be harassed or arrested for asking for
evidence. What is so disheartening is that Jewish
revolutionaries jam multiculturalism down your throat
but when you try to bring some diversity of opinion into
their camps by saying things like, “can I see some
evidence for your extraordinary assertion?”, you get to
be told that you are a wicked person and ought to be put
behind bars.
19
But if Friedman is able to say things like that because our
government has been flooded with “Trotsky’s orphans.”
Jewish historian Murray Friedman wrote:
“When Congress formed the National Endowment for
Democracy to spearhead the ideological war against the
Soviet Union, Reagan selected Carl Gershman, an exleader of the Young People Socialist League (YPLS), to
direct it.
“Although it would shortly adopt a hard line in
international and national defense matters, The New
Republic complained that ‘Trotsky’s orphans’ were taking
over the government.”[44]
Are those Trotsky’s orphans still with us? The answer is a
resounding yes. As K. R. Bolton put it in 2010:
“Trotskyism provided the ideological basis for U.S.
foreign policy, orientating U.S. foreign policy as a
development from Wilsonian global liberal-democracy to
what has become America’s ‘world revolutionary
mission…’
From the neo-Trotskyist perspective, dialectically,
capitalism became preferable to Stalinism. Capitalism
represented a stage towards socialism; Stalinism was an
aberration historically.
“Trotskyists readily joined with the CIA during the Cold
War, and in the post-Cold War world have continued to
have an influence, in particular ideologically, as it is now
expressed by non-Trotskyists from Ledeen to Reagan and
Bush. The ideology has not been repudiated by Obama.
“The permanent revolution has been substituted for
‘constant conflict,’ and ‘creative destruction;’ Stalinism
has been substituted for Islamofascism; Russia has been
replaced by the USA as the ‘one truly revolutionary
country in the world;’ and the ‘world proletarian
revolution’ has metamorphosed into the ‘global
democratic revolution.’” [45]
Richard Perle wrote in USA Today right after the Iraq
war, “Relax, celebrate victory.” Friedman later discovered
that the war indeed turned out to be more disastrous
than predicted. Yet instead of blaming the people who
proposed perpetual war in the first place, Friedman put
the blame on America:
“America broke Iraq; now America owns Iraq, and it
owns the primary responsibility for normalizing it. If the
water doesn’t flow, if the food doesn’t arrive, if the rains
don’t come and if the sun doesn’t shine, it’s now
America’s fault. We’d better get used to it, we’d better
make things right, we’d better do it soon, and we’d
better get all the help we can get.”[46]
Yes, America is an accomplice, but who are the real
culprit? Pat Buchanan? Ron Paul? Why didn’t Friedman
repeat what he had said back in 2003? Friedman
told Haaretz in 2003 that the Iraq war
“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30
neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of
them intellectuals, people who are mutual friends and
cultivate one another and are convinced that political
ideas are a major driving force of history.”[47]
Right after the war, the media was already manipulating
the average American.
“Robert Collier, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter, ‘filed
a dispatch that noted a small number of Iraqis at Firdos,
many of whom were not enthusiastic. When he woke up
the next day, he found that his editors had recast the
story.’
“The published version said that ‘a jubilant crowd roared
its approval’ as onlookers shouted, ‘We are free! Thank
you, President Bush!’”[48]
-------------------------------------------------[1] Christopher R. Browning, “‘Final Solution,’” Israel Gutman,
ed., The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Vol. II (New York:
Macmillan, 1990), 488-489.
[2] Peter Longerich, The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the
Final Solution (Stroud, UK: Tempus, 2003).
[3] Judith Tydor Baumel, The Holocaust Encyclopedia (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), xvii-xviii.
[4] For a historical study on this, see Sarah Gordon, Hitler,
Germans, and the “Jewish Question” (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1984).
[5] The full citation can be found in E. Michael Jones’
book, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 22.
[6] Browning, “‘Final Solution,’” 489.
[7] Norman F. Cantor, The Sacred Chain: The History of the
Jews (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 345.
[8] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 148.
[9] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 506.
[10] Ian Kershaw, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final
Solution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 102.
[11] Irving, Hitler’s War, xxvi.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Kershaw, Hitler and the Final Solution, 55.
[14] Brigitte
Hamann, Hitler’s
Vienna:
A
Dictator’s
Apprenticeship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 36.
[15] Ibid., 36-37.
[16] Ibid., 37.
[17] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 100.
[18] Ibid., 182.
[19] Ibid., 189-194.
[20] Ibid., 199.
[21] Ibid., 204.
[22] Ibid., 206.
[23] Ibid., 208.
[24] Berben, Dachau, 1933-1945: The Official History (Norfolk:
Norfolk Press, 1975), 11.
[25] Ibid., 181.
[26] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 177.
[27] Peter
Fritzsche, Life
and
Death
in
the
Third
Reich (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 187.
[28] David Irving, Hitler’s war, viii.
[29] Ian Kershaw, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final
Solution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 96.
[30] David Turner, “From Anti-Judaism to Anti-Semitism: The
Age of Reason,” Jerusalem Post, March 29, 2012.
[31] David Turner, “Chapter One: A Christian Introduction to
Christendom’s Jewish Problem,” Jerusalem Post, April 4, 2014.
20
[32] David Turner, “Holocaust Remembrance as Holocaust
Denial,” Jerusalem Post, January 30, 2012.
[33] David Turner, “Anti-Judaism in the Gospels, The Draft
Book, Part 3,” Jerusalem Post, June 5, 2011.
[34] Bruce Thornton, “Harvard Promotes the Palestinians’ SlowMotion ‘Final Solution,’” FrontPageMag.com, February 8, 2012.
[35] See Gordon, The “Jewish Question,” chap. 4.
[36] Dawidowicz, War Against the Jews, xvii.
[37] Norman Davies, “Russia: The Missing Link in Britain’s VE
Day Mythology,” Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.
[38] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, ix-x.
[39] Quoted in Richard J. Bosworth, Explaining Auschwitz and
Hiroshima: Historians and the Second World War, 19451990 (New York: Routledge, 1993), 89.
[40]
[41] Ibid., 89-90.
[42] Ibid., 90.
[43] Quoted in Greg Mitchell, “11 Years Ago Today: Media
Coverage of the Fall of Baghdad Suggested ‘Mission
Accomplished,’” The Nation, April 9, 2014.
[44] Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish
Intellectuals and Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005), 153.
[45] For further study, see for example K. R. Bolton, “America’s
‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of U.S. Foreign
Policy,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 3, 2010.
[46] Quoted in Greg Mitchell, “New Surge in Death and Violence
in Iraq—Eleven Years After We Took Baghdad,” The Nation, April
8, 2014.
[47] Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, April 4, 2003.
[48] Mitchell, “11 Years Ago Today: Media Coverage of the Fall
of Baghdad Suggested ‘Mission Accomplished,’” The Nation, April
9, 2014.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/11/finalsolution-or-inner-historian-incest-part-iv/
___________________________________________________________________________________
David Cole/Stein, Michael Shermer, Holocaust Denial, and
Mystery Religions
By Jonas E. Alexis June 29, 2014
To make a long story short,
“In November 2002, while imprisoned at the Metropolitan
Detention Center in Los Angeles awaiting trial, Rubin slit
his own throat and then tumbled off an 18- to 20-foot
balcony. He had been threatening suicide in the days
before.
“The injuries from the fall resulted in his death at Los
Angeles County General Hospital several days later.”
Michael Shermer and David Cole/Stein
The Sexual allegations seemed to have been a
devastating highlight in Michael Shermer’s career
as a self-proclaimed skeptic, particularly when
people like David Cole (now David Stein) were
observing the passing scene.
Cole, who was a flaming Holocaust revisionist in the late
1980s and 1990s, disappeared for a while and renounced
his Holocaust views due to death threats from Jewish
organizations and groups like the Jewish Defense
League, founded by Jewish terrorist Rabbi Meir
Kahane.[1]
Kahane was replaced by Irv Rubin, who became the
chairman of the organization. Rubin, like Kahane, had an
appetite for terrorist activity and was quickly charged for
getting involved in terrorist activities, including the killing
of Alex Odeh, the local chairman of the pro-Palestinian
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and a
decent man.[2] We are also told that
“On December 12, 2001, Irv Rubin, JDL Chairman, and
Earl Krugel, a member of the organization, were charged
with conspiracy to bomb private and government
property.
“The two allegedly were caught in the act of planning
bomb attacks against the King Fahd Mosque in Culver
City, California and on the office of U.S. Representative
Darrell Issa, who is Arab-American.
“The two were arrested as part of a sting operation after
an FBI informant named Danny Gillis delivered explosives
to Krugel’s home in L.A.”
Meir Kahane
In return for his life, Cole confessed his Holocaust sins to
Rubin, wrote a letter of apology, and paid his dues.
Shortly thereafter, the JDL posted Cole’s letter on their
website, which read in part:
“This statement is given in an attempt to set the record
straight about my current views regarding the Holocaust
and Holocaust denial. As anyone who follows the subject
of the Holocaust denial knows, from 1991 until 1994 I
was well known in the movement as a Jewish Holocaust
denier (a self-described ‘revisionist’).
“For the last three years I have no longer been
associated with this movement, having realized that I
was wrong and that the path I was taking with my life
was self-destructive and hurtful to others.
21
“I have spent the last few years in silence on the subject
of my time with the denial movement, a silence caused
mainly by my shame at what I had done with my life and
my desire to distance myself from that life…
“I would like to state for the record that there is no
question in my mind that during the Holocaust of
Europe’s Jews during World War Two, the Nazis
employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit
genocide against the Jews.
“At camps in both Eastern and Western Europe, Jews
were murdered in gas chambers which employed such
poison gases as Zyklon B and carbon monoxide (in the
Auschwitz camp, for example, the gas chambers used
Zyklon B). The evidence for this is overwhelming and
unmistakable.
“The Nazis intended to kill all of the Jews of Europe, and
the final death toll of this attempted genocide was six
million. This atrocity, unique in its scope and breadth,
must never be forgotten.
“During my four years as a denier, I was wracked with
self-hate and loathing, a fact that many of my critics
were quick to point out. Indeed, this self-hatred was
obvious to most, but I was too blind to see it.
“The hate I had for myself I took out on my people. I
was seduced by pseudo-historical nonsense and cleversounding but empty ideas and catch-phrases.
“When my eyes were finally opened, thanks to several
good, kind friends who refused to give up on me even at
my worst, I was horrified by what I had done.
“My instinct was to flee and never look back, but I now
understand that I owe it to the people I wronged to make
a forceful repudiation of my earlier views.
“I also owe a very large apology, not only to the many
people I enraged, and to the family and friends I hurt,
but especially to the survivors of the Holocaust, who
deserve only our respect and compassion, not revictimization…
“And just as I must set the record straight concerning my
views, it is also incumbent on me to set the record
straight regarding the video “documentaries” and media
appearances I did from 1991 to 1994.
“These ‘documentaries’ are merely videotaped garbage
filled with self-hatred and pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
My ‘media appearances’ were nothing but an
embarrassment.
“My glazed look, specious reasoning, and talking-incircles during my talk show appearances would have
hopefully alerted any astute viewers that this was a man
not in touch with reality.
“It has been brought to my attention that Bradley Smith
is still using one of my videos in advertisements he is
running on college campuses.
“Therefore, I would like to make these additional points:
This video is being advertised without my consent, and I
denounce this video as being without worth. Bradley
Smith is no historian, and denial is no ‘historical field.’
“Students on college campuses should look elsewhere to
find out about the Holocaust. To these students I would
say, look to books like Hilberg’s ‘Destruction of the
European
Jews,’
Yahil’s
‘The
Holocaust,’
and
Dawidowicz’s ‘War Against the Jews’ for correct
information.
“If your school library doesn’t stock these books, have
them order copies. Do not pay any attention to any
‘David Cole’ videos, except to rightly denounce them as
frauds.”
Rubin, finally, was relief and thought that he achieved
victory. And for more than ten years, Cole was nowhere
to be found in Holocaust revisionist circles. People were
disappointed precisely because they looked up to him.
Cole seems to compare his case with Galileo, whom he
believed was forced to confess his astronomical sins[3]—
a purely fictitious claim.[4]
In any event, Rubin died in 2002 in jail while “awaiting
trial on charges of conspiracy to bomb private and
government property.”
By 2013, Cole seemed to have realized that he was
purged and cleansed from his Holocaust sins. “I haven’t
changed my views,” he told the Guardian. “But I regret I
didn’t have the facility with language that I have now. I
was just a kid.” He continued,
“For 15 years I have been David Stein. Now the genie is
out of the bottle. I’m done. I’m finished. I’m not going to
try to remain as David Stein.”[5]
Cole, who is now 45, continued,
“My friends are horrified. They rang and emailed to ask if
it really was me. The Hollywood types are the ones
hurting the most right now because they could be
harmed by this. I’m feeling a certain amount of guilt.”[6]
Cole had been working in Hollywood, and when some
people in the industry realized that it was that Jewish
boy who was causing trouble in the early years, they
almost wet their pants. One entertainment industry
declared,
“When people found out it was, ‘Oh my God, get the fuck
away from him.’ There was debate about whether
everyone would look guilty by association. The reason we
were all so pissed at him is it plays into every horrible
stereotype about the right.”[7]
Cole came out with the publication of Republican Party
Animal, in which he has a long chapter about his strange
relationship with Michael Shermer.
Shermer is trying his best to ban the book from
circulation, which is quite strange for a person who
superficially styles himself a skeptic. Cole says that that
Shermer
“got his lawyers to serve my publisher with a demand to
‘refrain from publishing or distributing’ my book! This is a
man who slams religious institutions for stifling free
inquiry and suppressing facts. And he wants to ban a
book.
“Oh, and one other thing…along with the “cease and
desist” order the lawyers sent to my publisher, they sent
me one as well, with a pre-written statement of
22
recantation that I was supposed to read publicly on
Youtube….
“Anyway, Mikey’s law firm was no match for me. In a
matter of hours, they retreated like that mangy dog that
got its ass kicked by a cat a few weeks ago.”
Shermer feels threatened for good reason because Cole,
in the early days, recorded much of his conversation with
Shermer, in which Shermer actually made some stunning
admission about Holocaust revisionism.
But before we get into this, it must be pointed out in
passing that last year Cole decided to contact Shermer
about the rape accusations precisely because Shermer
deliberately accused Cole of being a racist in order to
literally destroy Cole’s revisionist ideas. Cole wrote to
him saying,
“Hi Mike,
“It’s the guy you never get tired of attacking, David Cole.
I’ve been keeping up with this whole rape accusation
thing, and, of course, I have no special knowledge
beyond what I’ve read. But, and here’s the reason I’m
writing to you…
“Has this experience…made you any more sympathetic,
or perhaps given you a bit more empathy, regarding the
things you said about me? How you branded me a ‘racist’
(the modern equivalent of calling someone a ‘witch’).
How you admitted you lied. And how you refused to
retract your accusation even after admitting you lied.
“So I’m interested in asking you if your current dilemma
has perhaps birthed in you some small regret for having
lied about me. I have no knowledge of the truth or lack
thereof regarding the accusations made against you. If
they’re true, there is no punishment that is too harsh for
you.
“But if they’re false, well…it kinda stinks having folks
print lies about you, huh? Is this a ‘chickens coming
home to roost’ moment for Dr. Michael Shermer?”
Shermer responded,
“Thank you for the frank and forthright letter. To
cut to the chase and answer your question, yes the
libelous and defamatory comments being made
about me has [sic] made me more sympathetic and
understanding to how I have interacted with
creationists, Holocaust revisionists, New Age gurus
like Deepak Chopra, and others…
“I don’t think you are a racist David, and I’m sorry
for the things I said about you. So yea David, the
chickens have come home to roost, so please
accept my apology for some of the things I said
about you.”[8]
Shermer has made thousands of dollars in books
misrepresenting people, but in secret he is apologizing to
his critics. Listen to what he says in Why People Believe
Weird Things:
“Christian apologetics is filled with tautologies: Is there a
God? Yes. How do you know? Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct? Because it was
inspired by God. In other words, God is because God
is.”[9]
Sounds like Shermer has been reading comic books and
using them as a basis for his source. He certainly did not
cite any serious thinking Christian who believes this, and
surely he would not even attempt to scholarly interact
with people like Peter van Inwagen, Alvin Plintinga,
William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Robert Merrihew
Adams, John C. Polkinghorne, Stephen M. Barr, Mortimer
J. Adler, among others.
The easiest way to ridicule your opponent is to apply a
cartoonish version to his position and go after it like a
bull that sees a red handkerchief.
[youtube TqANWuXQ3Z0]
Denying History was already a bad and silly book, and
I simply was appalled to read some of the
argumentations presented.[10]
What was so amazing was that some people took those
arguments seriously, which showed that those people
have never been exposed to serious argumentation.
But if Cole is right about Shermer, then Denying
History is perhaps the greatest joke in the history of
Holocaust studies—probably much worse than Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners and more
recently The Devil That Never Dies.
But the commonality between both Goldhagen and
Shermer are quite striking: Goldhagen wanted to sue
people like Ruth Bettina Birn for documenting that
Goldhagen forged some of his sources, and Shermer
wanted to sue Cole for largely recording Shermer’s own
words and then reproducing them in his book.
Shermer and Cole got in touch about Holocaust
discussion in 1993, shortly after Cole’s appearance on
the Motel Williams Show, during which both Cole and
23
Mark Weber of the Institute of Historical Research
defended a number of revisionist positions.
Cole wrote that Shermer “was impressed by my
knowledge on the subject, and he wanted to dive headfirst into the issue.” Shermer specifically got in touch
with Cole because Shermer really thought that Holocaust
revisionism
would
boost
the
readership
of Skeptic magazine and move his career to a new
height.Cole writes,
“After getting the chance to hear my views one-on-one,
and after I shared some of my private documents, he
was ecstatic.
“He felt that this topic, Holocaust revisionism, would be
the golden goose with which Skeptic could lay eggs all
over the humiliated face of the rival Skeptical Inquirer.
From a letter dated December 28, 1993 [which is quoted
in part here]:
“We are, by the way, planning a print run ten-times are
[sic] normal size for this issue (from 6,000 to 60,000)
because I believe the subject is timely enough to justify
a broader marketing of Skeptic. Thus what we are doing
takes on even more significance.
“Another disturbing fact I have encountered is the
unwillingness of my fellow historians to debate you
in the media. They do not wish to appear on
television or on the radio in a ‘debate’ or ‘splitscreen’ format because it might look like you have
a legitimate position to debate.
“We do not feel this way at Skeptic and, in fact, it
is our job to investigate extraordinary claims and
confront them head-on in public debate. Thus, if
you receive media calls in which they are looking
for someone to debate you it would be acceptable
if you gave them our number.”
Sure enough, Cole got Shermer got on the Phil Donahue
Show, and things did not go well.
But weeks before the show, Cole told Shermer pointblank:
“But here’s my concern; you’ve only been studying this
issue for, maybe, three months, at most. It’s been my
entire life for five years. How exactly do you plan to
debate me?”
Shermer responded, “I’m just going to have to cram a lot
of reading into the next few weeks.” Cole:
“I have a better idea. Let me make a proposition. I will
write out for you every single point I’ll bring up on the
show. Basically, I’ll show you my hand. Now, you’ve got
contacts who would never speak to me, never take my
call. But they’ll talk to you.
“Especially if you tell them that you’re going up against
Cole on national TV, and you need some ammo. So what
do you say? I give you every point I’ll make on the show,
and you take those points to every mainstream
Holocaust historian, and you get the ammo to demolish
me. Deal?”
“Deal,” was Shermer’s response. Here is Cole’s account
of what happened next:
“The next day, I faxed Shermer the points, which I had
written as questions, to make them less threatening to
the historians Shermer was going to contact. Anything I
might talk about on the show would be from that list.
“Shermer was true to his word, not out of some innate
sense of honesty, but because he didn’t want to look bad
on TV by not having answers to my questions.
“He showed them to Michael Berenbaum (then-director
of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and its research
institute), Sybil Milton (senior historian at the United
States Holocaust Memeorial Museum) Henry Friedlander
(a Holocaust survivor who, for a quarter of a century,
taught history in the Department of Judaic Studies at the
City University of New York), and Alex Grobman
(founding editor-in-chief of the Simon Wiesenthal Annuel.
“NBC flew us to New York on the same plane, and we
stayed at the same hotel….We had dinner together that
night, to discuss the show. I asked him the results of his
attempts to get Berenbaum, Milton, Friedlander, and
Grobman to address my points.
“Michael told me, bluntly, that they were unable to
address them all. In fact, he said, these foremost
‘experts’ seemed stymied by the issues I raised
regarding Auschwitz and Majdanek.”
Shermer told Cole that he would tell the truth on the
show, but things changed swiftly.
According to Cole, right before the show, Phil Donahue
had a private meeting with Shermer and he soon realized
that Shermer was not able to show that revisionism was
just historical fiction.
Throughout the show, Shermer tried mightily to make a
case, but even Donahue, who railed against Shermer
prior to the show, was himself a little frustrated.
“I would hope that there would be some room for a full
and enthusiastic response to these kinds of statements
[revisionism] made by folks in the spirit of free speech,”
he said.
“It seems to me that those who died in the hand of antiSemites and dictators and fascists, the memory of those
people would be honored by a vigorous rejoinder [and]
inquiry. So that’s what confuses me about why we don’t
have more informed people [and] tell the truth about
this.”
Shermer mightily tried to regain ground with no success
and then shifted the burden of proof.
“The burden of proof is not on us to prove the Holocaust
happened,” Shermer declared. “That’s been happening
for fifty years. We’ve established that. The burden of
proof is on them to prove that it didn’t happen.”
How has the Holocaust been happening for fifty years?
Well, Shermer tells us that Holocaust historians base
their arguments on key foundations: a convergence of
evidence
made
by
eyewitnesses,
documents,
photographs, and physical evidence.[11]
Yet Shermer never tells his readers that there was a
“convergence of evidence” showing that people were
gassed at Belsen, Dachau, and other places; there was a
“convergence of evidence” showing that the Nazis used
Jewish fat to make soap. Alleged eyewitnesses were
24
summoned,
supposed
documents
were
used,
photographs were forged, and physical evidence was
fabricated.
Those claims were made by a wide range of Jewish
organizations, including Simon Wiesenthal. These stories,
particularly the soap story, spread like wildfire in Poland,
Slovakia, and even Germany.
This was so popular that “by July 1942 rumours were rife
all over Eastern Europe that Jews were killed in great
numbers and ‘boiled into soap.’”[12]
Now no serious Holocaust historian believes those
stories. They were first challenged by people labeled
“deniers,” some of whom were persecuted for challenging
accepted dogma.
[youtube VUjRIcgtz2Y]
Alex Odeh
To make a long story short, Shermer and his co-author
wrote Denying History, but behind closed doors, Shermer
was apologizing to Cole and others about what he wrote.
On the Phil Donahue Show, Shermer declared that
Holocaust historians were trying to answer Cole’s
questions, but in private Shermer admitted point-blank
that those “experts” were remarkably “ignorant” about
those issues.
“After having learned that neither Sybil Milton, Henry
Friedlander, Michael Berenbaum, or Alex Grobman could
address any of my points regarding the gas chambers,
Sherm got even worse news post-Donahue when he
interviewed Raul Hilberg and berenbaum at length, on
tape (he supplied me with the transcripts).
“Hilberg flat-out stated that British-obtained ‘confession’
of Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Hoess was written by
the Brits in English, with absolutely no input from Hoess,
who was tortured into signing a document he was
completely unfamiliar with, and which he could not read.
‘He didn’t even know what was in it,’ Hilberg admitted,
‘but he signed it. They forced him to sign it anyway.’
“And Berenbaum? He admitted that he hadn’t
examined, not once, the ‘gas chamber’ evidence in his
own museum.”[13]
Yet in books and articles published by Skeptic, Shermer
tells a completely different story about Holocaust
revisionism. Once again, Cole confronted Shermer on this
very issue and recorded the conversation.
Cole: “That part [in Shermer’s article] where you claim I
was in the wooden not the brick building during my
investigation, makes me look stupid, like I didn’t know
wood from brick.”
Shermer: “Well, It sorta came down to, that was the final
segment of the article that needed to be done, and, uh,
uh, with, with like, one night to go, uh, and, and that
was, the best I could do.”
Cole: “What do you mean, the best you could do?”
Shermer: “That was the best I could do to answer your
questions. Either that or leave them out entirely, which I
didn’t want to do.”
Cole: “But you realize though, at this point, that that
wasn’t the wooden barrack that I was in. You realize that
we’re talking about the brick building and not the wooden
barrack.”
Shermer: “Yeah.”
Cole: “And you know that I could have told you that, if
you’d just asked me.”
Shermer: “Right. Well, I didn’t.”
Cole: “[laughs] So if you were going to mention my
work, you had to put something in there…”
Shermer: “Yes…”
Cole: “as a kind of an answer…”
Shermer: “Yes…”
Cole: “…even if you yourself don’t really think it’s a
legitimate answer.”
Shermer: “At the time I wrote it, that’s what I was
thinking.”
Cole: “Just so we’re clear, because we have talked about
these things before, you do realize that that really isn’t
an answer to my question.”
Shermer: “Right.”
Cole: “Well, isn’t there anything better you could have
done?”
Shermer: “Well, I couldn’t get any other answers, from
anybody. On those questions.”
Cole: “Well, couldn’t you have said, ‘Cole’s questions,
while not necessarily leading to the conclusion Cole has
made, are still as of yet unanswered?”
Shermer: “Well, you should say that.”
Cole: “But I’m askin’, maybe you could have said that.”
Shermer: “Yeah, yeah I could have.”
Cole: “You say [in the article], ‘revisionists like Weber,
Zundel, Irving, Cole, and Smith have tried to convince
me they are not racists and have no political agendas,
but they have been contradicted from within their own
ranks.’ But then you don’t go on to explain anything, any
kind of ‘contradiction,’ about me, even though you just
included me in that grouping.”
Shermer: “Yeah, I was sorta lumping everyone I had
covered in the article…”
Cole: “but that’s not fair to me.”
Shermer: “Yeah, that’s true. That’s right.”
Cole: I mean, you don’t think I’m racist…”
Shermer: “No, I don’t.”
Cole: “But, you do understand that that might give the
impression I am, for people who read it who don’t know
me…”
Shermer: Yeah, yeah…it would.”
Cole: “I mean, honestly, that’s not really fair to me, is
it?”
Shermer: “I would agree.”
Cole: “You yourself didn’t find some kidn of solution to
my question about the small levels of Zyklon B traces in
25
the ‘homicidal’ gas chambers as opposed to the [high
levels of traces in] the delousing ones.”
Shermer: “Not really, no.”
Cole: “So you still couldn’t really find any answers for
that.”
Shermer: “Right.”
Cole: “But you didn’t pass that on to your readers.”
Shermer: “Well, again, David, it wsa not my goal to
make you look good.”
Cole: “At the very least, you can say that my questions
about the [gas chambers] forensic issue have not really
been answered yet.”
Shermer: “I would say that’s true. I don’t know that
there aren’t answers, I just know that I haven’t been
able to get them.”
Cole: “From any of the people you’ve asked.”
Shermer: “Right.”
Cole: Maybe they have them [answers], and just chose
not to tell you.”
Shermer: “No, I mean, Grobman sent ‘em off, I sent ‘em
off, I haven’t heard anything back in writing. When I had
talked to Sybil Milton, she was very short, uh, with me,
very busy, same as Henry [Friedlander]. Now
Berenbaum, I think doesn’t, I’m sure he doesn’t know. I
think his knowledge is limited, from what Grobman has
told me about Berenbaum, he’s kind of on the weak end
of the top scholars…I don’t want you to get made,
because you are, but…”
The conversation went on and on, but you get the point.
Cole has also put some of the recording conversations
online, during which Shermer admits that he deliberately
misled his readers into thinking that Cole was a
racist.[14]
Shermer continues to propound the same old game even
in his new book The Believing Brain. He writes that David
Irving had a slogan which basically says, “no holes, no
Holocaust.” Shermer showed no citation and no source.
When I contacted Irving and pointed this to him, he
wrote back and said he never said it. Irving said in reply:
“He is confusing me with Robert Faurisson. He says that.
That is his catch phrase. I will defend or comment on
what I say in talks, I don’t have to defend others.”
I contacted Shermer to find out where he got the
citation, but he said it probably came during one of
Irving’s talks. I also pointed out to him what Irving said,
but that did not stop him from repeating the same straw
man in TheBelieving Brain.
So here is how Shermer reasons against some of his
opponents: put a dumb label on them and then attack
that label accordingly.
Shermer knows very well that he would immediately fail
a logic class if he even dares to use that kind of
argumentation. But that does not stop him from
misleading his readers. Why?
Well, that’s how you make money and become famous
these days. Listen to what he said about Irving:
“David Irving, for example, claims that there are no
holes in the roof of the gas chamber at Krema 2 at
Aschwitz-Birkenau. So what? So plenty, he says.
“No holes in the roof of the gas chamber at Krema 2
means that the eyewitness account of SS guards
climbing up on the roof and pouring Zyklon-B gas pellets
through the holes and into the gas chamber below is
wrong, which means that no one was gassed in Krema 2,
which means that no one was gassed at AuschwitzBirkenau, which means that no one was gassed at any
prison camp, which means that no Jews anywhere were
systematically exterminated by the Nazis.”[15]
The astonishing fact is that Shermer has cited many of
Irving’s books, which means that he is at least familiar
with the citations and the claims made in those books!
Irving admits that many Jews died in Nazi Germany, and
the six-million figure is a completely different issue.
In short, Shermer deliberately put words into Irving’s
mouth and then attack them. Can a serious person take
Shermer seriously here?
[youtube 5UnK0R62-yg]
Christopher Hitchens
If Shermer has problems with the claims that no one
has yet to prove that Jews were gassed, he should have
also attacked the late Christopher Hitchens.
Chitchens made it clear in the L.A. Times that “there
were no gas chambers or extermination camps on
German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or
Buchenwald.” Even Raul Hilberg told Hitchens,
“Look, David irving has made me go back and look at
things again. David Irving has made me reexamine
things I thought I knew for sure. David Irving has made
me go over some ground, ask me how I know things,
and I welcome this kind of challenge.”
Hitchens continued,
“I also became aware, through conversations with
Deborah Lipstadt, Christopher Browning and other
‘mainstream’ writers on the subject, that there was a
‘grey area’ of what might be called Holocaust mythology:
an area where it had to be admitted that certain longheld beliefs were in error.”[16]
Yet in published books, those authors and so-called
experts never mention those “grey area.”
For example, in published works, Browning maintains
that the Nazis wanted to exterminate “every Jew of
Europe,” and this policy was “initiated by Adolf Hitler in
the summer of 1941 in the euphoria of his greatest
successes and his seemingly imminent victory over the
Soviet Union…”[17]
26
The evidence? Browning simply leaves his readers
completely adrift. As we have seen in previous articles, it
is crazy to postulate that Hitler wanted to exterminate
every Jew in Europe; there were thousands upon
thousands of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Furthermore, I wonder if Shermer is willing to call
Hitchens a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, or even a
crook for saying the following:
“The Holocaust has become a secular religion, with state
support in the form of a national museum.”[18]
Hitchens went so far as to say that David Irving
“is in fact not a ‘denier,’ but a revisionist, and muchhated by the full-dress ‘denial’ faction. The pages of
Goebbels, as in his books on Dresden, Churchill and
Hitler, contain some highly important and damning
findings from his work in the archives of the Third
Reich.”[19]
It seems that saying things like these would invoke cries
of anti-Semitism, but Hitchens moves on to say that his
mother’s family was of German and Polish Jewish
descent and his wife’s family produced an Auschwitz
survivor.
Foreseeing that this preface would ease his statements,
Hitchens further declared, “I look forward to a time when
I won’t feel any need to mention this.”[20]
Hitchens continued, implying that it was “revisionists”
who first made it clear that 1) there were no gas
chambers at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald; 2) the
Nazis did not turn Jews into soap; and 3) Rudolf Hoess’
“confession” “was extracted by force.”
If a person wants to remain a serious historian, he has to
abide by these historical facts now recognized by World
War II historians.
If Shermer is not willing to call Hitchens a denier, why in
the world is he labeling Irving a denier for saying the
same thing that Hitchens is saying?
No reasonable and thinking person should take Shermer
seriously. And I have no intention to plunk down the
money and buy his next book because they are largely
worthless when it comes to intellectual honesty and
serious scholarship.
Perhaps it is time for him to grow up, leave the show
business behind, and get serious about doing solid
research. HisBelieving Brain “synthesizes thirty years of
research to answer the question of how and why we
believe what we do in all aspects of our lives.”[21]
Yet after thirty years of research, Shermer could not
even produce a coherent argument in his book. Perhaps
he was right to warn that “Beliefs come first,
explanations for beliefs follow.”[22]
Throughout his book, Shermer put a heavy emphasis on
evolutionary psychology, which he believes has
uncontestable evidence. But evolutionary biologist Jerry
Coyne is not impressed. Some of the arguments
propounded in evolutionary psychology, Coyne tells us,
are “not science, but advocacy.”
Those evolutionary psychologists, he continued, “are
guilty of indifference to scientific standards. They
buttress strong claims with weak reasoning, weak data,
and finagled statistics…[and] choose ideology over
knowledge.” Coyne moves on to say,
“Freud’s views lost credibility when people realized that
they were not based on science, but were actual
ideological edifice, a myth about human life, that was
utterly resistant to scientific refutation…Evolutionary
psychologists are now building a similar edifice. They,
too, deal in dogmas rather than propositions of
science.”[23]
Other atheist scientists such as Massimo Pigliucci and
Dan Agin have the similar problems with many of the
theories in evolutionary psychology.[24]
Shermer, who pretends to approach any issue with a
skeptical doubt (except his own cherished belief),
declared,
“For a materialist such as myself, there is no such thing
as ‘mind.’ It ultimately reduces down to neurons firing
and neurochemical transmitter substances flowing across
synaptic gaps between neurons, combining in complex
patterns to produce something we call mind but is
actually just brain.”[25]
When you ask Shermer the evidence for this, we hear
things like, “That’s the principle of reductionism that is
such an integral part of science.”[26]
The scientific evidence is unavailable, but Shermer
believes this axiomatic premise anyway—and that is
science! Let it be noted in passing that a number of
scientists and philosophers have abandoned that dogma
because it lacks coherency and logical consistency.[27]
In a nutshell, Shermer’s brain is doing his thinking. His
brain is actually the hero of the plot. If it tells him to
proposition a woman while his husband is elsewhere in
the same room, Shermer cannot resist that lustful
temptation. For him, it seems that chasing after women’s
skirts is much more alluring than controlling his sexual
appetite and erotic calculus.
Furthermore, the argumentation as proposed by Shermer
and others here is a complete mess. Dawkins for
example emphatically declares in his popular book The
Selfish Genes:
“We are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly
programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as
genes.”[28]
Yet we are told that in the same book that
“We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth
and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our
indoctrination…
“We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme
machines, but we have the power to turn against our
creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the
tyranny of the selfish replicators.”[29]
We? Can robots defy the selfish gens of their birth?
This materialist ideology simply does not work, most
specifically when it is applied to other areas such as
music, literature and art—both ancient and modern.[30]
27
Finally, Shermer brings an issue in The Believing
Brain that merits a response, since this has sprung up in
a number of internet websites. He writes,
“Virgin birth myths likewise spring up throughout time
and geography. Among those alleged to have been
conceived without the usual assistance from a male were
Dionysus, Perseus, Buddha, Attis, Krishna, Horus,
Mercury, Romulus, and, of course, Jesus.
“Consider the parallels between Dionysus, the ancient
Greek god of wine, and Jesus of Nazareth. Both were
said to have been born from a virgin mother, who was a
mortal woman, but were fathered by the king of heaven;
both allegedly returned from the dead, transformed the
idea of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the
creator, and both were said to have been liberator of
mankind.
“Resurrection myths are no less culturally constructed.
Osiris is the Egyptian god of life, death, and fertility, and
is one of the oldest gods for whom records have
survived…
“Widely worshiped until the compulsory repression of
pagan religions in the early Christian era, Osiris was not
only the redeemer and merciful judge of the dead in the
afterlife, he was also linked to fertility and, most notably,
the flooding of the Nile and growth of crops.”[31]
How interesting that Shermer did not cite the primary
sources for these fraudulent assertions. The impression
he seems to give here and elsewhere in the book is that
Christianity seems to have borrowed much of its ideas
from mystery religions.
These ideas have been made popular in a slightly
different tone on the internet, specifically with the movie
called Zeitgeist. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Osiris for example was the son of Nut, the sky-goddess,
and Geb, the earth-god. Nut was an adulterer and was
formerly the wife of the Sun. While Osiris was inside
Nut’s womb, he fell in love with his sister Isis, with whom
he had sexual intercourse and produced a child named
Horus.
Nut also had other offspring, whose names were
Nephthys, Set, etc. After their birth, Osiris again had
sexual intercourse with Nephthys, the wife of his brother,
Set. Filled with anger and rage, Set ended up drowning
Osiris in the Nile River and cutting him into 14 pieces.
Isis found the pieces but could not find the last one,
Osiris’s sexual organ. As a result, she reconstructed it
with pieces of wood and began to have sexual
intercourse with him. The mythological story goes on and
on.
Likewise, Dionysus was the Greek god of wine and
revelry, madness, and ecstasy, which also encompasses
religious dance and, according to Herodotus, demon
possession.[32]
Dionysus, according to mythology, also had a sexual
relationship with Zeus and eventually died. Zeus was a
masturbator and ended up spilling his seed on the side of
a mountain, which became a pomegranate tree, and
which gave birth to Attis.
Nearly all the gods had some form of sexual infatuation,
including Buddha’s mother, Horus, Jupiter, Mercury, and
even Krishna.
Silvia for example was raped by Mars, and Attis’ mother
got
pregnant
by
a
dismembered
penis
of
Adgistis.[33] Attis was sexually promiscuous and
unfaithful to his lover, who eventually drove him
completely insane. In the process, he castrated himself
and bled to death.
Here’s what the Apostle Paul says,
“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice,
they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not
that ye should have fellowship with devils, Ye cannot
drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye
cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and the table of
devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we
stronger than he?” (1 Corinthians 10:20-22).
Moreover, when Paul was on top of Mars’ Hill, when he
mentioned the resurrection to the pagan philosophers,
“some mocked, and others said, We will hear thee again
of this matter” (Acts 17:32).
As one writer has pointed out, they could have just said
something like, “This sounds like the stuff we have read
from Homer and others. No difference.”
Christians, from the first century and all the way to the
fourth century, were killed, tortured, decapitated, thrown
to the lions, for believing in monotheism and were even
called “atheists” for rejecting the very essence of the
Osiris-Dionysus-Bacchus and pagan worship, and now we
are being told that they got their ideas from mystery
religions!
Ancient historian Manfred Clauss of the Free University of
Berlin argues that it does not make any sense to
interpret the mystery religions “as a forerunner to
Christianity.” He adds, “Mithraism was an independent
creation with its own unique value within a given
historical, specifically Roman, context.”[34]
Likewise, scholar of antiquity Edwin M. Yamauchi argues
that Mithraism could not have influenced Christianity in
any theological or historical context for the very reason
that Christianity is older than Mithraism and the texts for
Mithraism are dated after A.D. 140.
Moreover, what is made available to scholars is only
dated from the second, third, and fourth centuries A.D.
In a similar vein, other scholars and archeologists such
as Richard Gordon declare that the story of Mithraism
was not popular until the reign of Hadrian! In other
words, the historical evidence for mystery religions in
first-century Palestine is non-existent.
In addition, mystery religions were secret cults and
operated within two basic principles: “The injunction to
silence, intended to prohibit ritual details from reaching
the outside world; and the promise of salvation to the
initiates.”[35]
28
In other words, they were forerunners of Freemasonry.
Yet both Jesus and many of his diciples, when they were
on trial, declared that they did nothing in secret (John
18:20; Matthew 10:26-27; Acts 26:26). In the words of
Oxford scholar E. J. Yarnold,
“The fervor with which historians used to detect
wholesale Christian borrowings from the Mithraic and
other mysteries has now died down.”
In a similar vein, Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox
denounced those who draw parallels between Christianity
and pagan religions as irresponsible.[36] Others scholars
such as L. Patterson and Gary Lease have made similar
remarks.
Interestingly enough, the idea that Christianity borrowed
from pagan religions was started by none other than
Richard Reitzenstein (1861-1931), a German Jewish
classical philologist who started the History of Religions
School in Germany.
Then the idea began to mutate in the minds of other
Jewish scholars such as Hugh J. Schonfield who
wrote Those Incredible Christians. Then it progressively
migrated into a book that is known only to scholars
named The Golden Bough, by James Frazer (18541941).[37]
Then popular authors began to adopt the idea and spread
it into the cultural landscape. Timothy Freke and Peter
Gandy’s The Jesus Mysteries and Tom Harpur’s The
Pagan Christ are classic examples.
Yet the story became even problematic for those
mythicists when their theories are confronted with a core
historical claim. Noted historian of antiquity T. N. D.
Mettinger, responding to these allegations, declared,
“There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence
that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological
construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying
and rising gods of the surrounding world.”
Moreover,
the
mythicists’
comparison
between
Christianity with Mithraism is a terrible non-sequitor.
For example, Jesus was born of a virgin, but Mithras was
born out of a rock! And all through the early centuries,
the early church fathers pinned Mithraism as a satanic
cult.
All through the New Testament, Christians are told to
“keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). In Athens,
Paul’s “spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city
wholly given to idolatry” (Acts 17:16).
Yet now we are being told that the early Christians
borrowed from those cults. It simply boils down to
fanciful speculations, some of which are summoned
deliberately. As scholar Ronald H. Nash pointed out,
“The uncompromising monotheism and the exclusiveness
that the early church preached and practiced make the
possibility of any pagan inroads…unlikely, if not
impossible.”
There is still time for Shermer to grow up. But until then,
we should never pay attention to many of his bold claims
and comfortable hoaxes.
[youtube vJe0gS-cLtM]
[1] See for example Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of
God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkley: University
of California Press, 2003), 54-55.
[2] See Ed Pilkington, “Renewed Push to Investigate Alex Odeh
Murder Begins 28 Years After Bombing,” Guardian, October 15,
2013.
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu1Q6VMgI8w.
[4] For historical studies on this vitally important issue, see for
example Ronald L. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other
Modern
Myths (Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press,
2009); Edward Grant, Science and Religion,400 B.C. to A.D.
1550: From Aristotle to Copernicus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2004); Gary Ferngren, ed.,Science and
Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2002); John Hedley Brooke,Science and
Religion: Some Historical Perspective (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1998); David C. Lindberg and Ronald L.
Numbers, God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounters
between Christianity and Science(Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1986); When Science and Christianity Meet (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2003).
[5] Quoted in Rory Carroll, “Hollywood conservative unmasked
as notorious Holocaust revisionist,” Guardian, May 3, 2013.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] David Cole, Republican Party Animal: The “Bad Boy of
Holocaust History” Blows the Lid Off Hollywood’s Secret RightWing Underground (Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2014),
chapter 6.
[9] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: PseudoScience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997 and 2002), 57.
[10] We have already looked at some of those arguments in
previous articles.
[11] Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, 214.
[12] Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the
Truth about Hitler’s “Final Solution” (New York: Henry Holt,
1998), 145.
[13] emphasis in original.
[14]http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5297.
[15] Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain: How We Construct
Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (New York: Times Books,
2012), 251.
[16] All citations are from Cole’s book.
[17] Christopher R. Browning, “‘Final Solution,’” Israel Gutman,
ed., The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Vol. II(New York:
Macmillan, 1990), 488-489.
[18] Christopher Hitchens, “The Strange Case of David
Irving,” LA Times, May 20, 2001.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Shermer, The Believing Brain, 6.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Quoted in Joan Roughgarden, Evolution’s Rainbow:
Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People (Berkley:
University of California Press, 2004), 174.
[24]Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on Stilts (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press: 2010), 304; Dan Agin, More Than Genes (New
York: Oxford University Press: 2010), 303.
[25] Shermer, The Believing Brain, 27.
[26] Ibid.
[27] See for example Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why
the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012);
Robert C. Koons and George Bealer, ed., The Waning of
Materialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Edward
Kelly and Emily Williams Kelly, ed., Irreducible Mind: Toward a
Psychology for the 21st Century (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 2010); David J. Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In
Search of a Fundamental Theory (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1997); John Foster, The Immaterial Self: A Defense of
the Cartesian Dualist Conception of the Mind (New York:
Routledge, 1991).
[28] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1976), 215.
[29] Ibid., preface.
[30] For a similar study on this, see for example Aniruddh D.
Patel, Music, Language, and the Brain (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008); Isabelle Peretz and Robert J. Zatorre,
eds., The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music (New York: Oxford
Univ. Press, 2003); Gilbert Rouget, Music and Trance: A Theory
29
of the Relations Between Music and Possession (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1985); Peter Wilson, eds., Music
and the Muses: The Culture of “Mousike” in the Classical
Athenian City (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004);
Frances S. Connelly, The Sleep of Reason: Primitivism in Modern
European Art and Aesthetics, 1725-1907 (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995); Bram Dijkstra, Idols
of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-Sicle
Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Carl
Roebuck, ed. The Muses at Work: Arts, Crafts, and Professions
in Ancient Greece and Rome(Boston: MIT Press, 1969); Steven
H. Lonsdale, Dance and Ritual Play in Greek Religion (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1993); Efrossini Spentzou and
Don Fowler, eds., Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and
Inspiration in Classical Literature (New York: Oxford University
Press,
2002);
E.
R.
Dodds, The
Greeks
and
the
Irrational (Berkley: University of California Press, 1951);
Rosamond E. M. Harding, An Anatomy of Inspiration and an
Assay of the Creative Mood (New York: W. Heffer & Sons,
1948); John Bartholomew O’Connor, Chapters in the History of
Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece (New York: Haskell House,
1966); Lillian Feder,Madness in Literature (Princeton: Princeton
Univ. Press, 1980).
[31] Ibid., 205.
[32] See E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1951), chapter 3. This was one
reason why Nietzsche favored Dionysus over the Christian God
because Dionysus, according to Nietzsche, would bring about
the transvaluation of all values, including sexual values.
Nietzsche introduced the idea in The Birth of Tragedy, first
published in 1871 (the year in which Darwin published The
Descent of Man), and moved on to expand on it in nearly all his
other writings. For scholarly accounts on Nietzsche and the
Greek god Dionysus, see Charles Segal, Dionysiac Poetic and
Euripides’ Bacchae (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1982); John Burt Foster, Heirs to Dionysus; A Nietzschean
Current in Literary Modernism (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1981); Martin Persson Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of
the Hellenistic and Roman Age (New York: Arno Press, 1979);
Ismene Lada-Richards,Initiating Dionysus: Ritual and Theater in
Aristophanes’s Frogs (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
[33] For studies on all these issues, see Richard S. Caldwell, The
Origin of the Gods (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989);
William
Hansen, Classical
Mythology (New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
2004);Carl
Olson, Original
Buddhist
Sources (New
Brunswick:
Rutgers
University
Press,
2005); Robert E. Bell, Women of Classical Mythology (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993); Anna Libera Dallapiccola, Hindu
Myths (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003); Dimitri Meeks
and Christine Favard-Meeks, Daily Life of the Egyptian
Gods (New York: Cornell University Press, 1996); Carole
Newlands, Playing with Time: Ovid and the Fasti (New York:
Cornell University Press:,1995); Helen Morales, Classical
Mythology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
[34] Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and
His Mysteries (New York: Routledge, 2001), 7.
[35]Ibid., 14.
[36] See his long treatise on the history of Christianity and
paganism in Pagans and Christians (New York: Penguin, 1986).
[37] For a sociological and historical critique of Frazer’s work,
see Rodney Stark, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great
Religions and the Evolution of Belief (New York: HarperOne,
2007).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/29/davidcolestein-michael-shermer-holocaust-denial-andmystery-religions/
__________________________________________________________________________________
Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers
By Jonas E. Alexis, March 29, 2014
with the Nazis when Finland, who had a mutual enemy in
the Soviet Union, joined the war in June 1941. ”[1]
Yet
Kendal,
without
serious
self-examination,
propounded, “The alliance between Hitler and the race he
vowed to annihilate — the only instance of Jews fighting
for Germany’s allies — is one of the most extraordinary
aspects of the Second World War, and yet hardly anyone,
including many Finns, know anything about it. ”[2]
The serious historical questions which Kendal failed to
posit and which are largely and sometimes deliberately
ignored by the Holocaust establishment are simply these:
If Hitler’s goal was to annihilate an entire race, how is it
possible that there were thousands upon thousands of
people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany?
Is it historically and intellectually satisfying to maintain
both contradictory positions at the same time and in the
same respect? Is it rationally sound to say that those
Jewish people were simply dupes and simply didn’t know
Hitler’s real intention? Didn’t they know that their ultimate
doom was concentration camps? What actually made
them join the Third Reich?
Those are some of the many questions that I asked one
A few days ago, Paul Kendal of the British writer who happened to publish a widely read book on
newspaper the Telegraph wrote that in 1941 a Nazi Germany. The book is published by the University of
medical officer by the name of Major Leo Skurnik California.
received an Iron Cross from the German high In our long private conversation, he kept positing that it
command. Skurnik happened to be a Jew. Kendal was Hitler’s intent to exterminate the Jews of Europe, but
wrote,
throughout his analysis, he failed to seriously deal with
“And Skurnik was not the only Jew fighting on the side of the puzzling situation that people of Jewish descent in
the Germans. More than 300 found themselves in league Nazi Germany posed a serious threat to the prevailing
30
thesis that the Hitler wanted to exterminate all Jews of
Europe.
Jewish historian Walter Laqueur attempted to answer this
nagging dichotomy last year. He admitted that there were
indeed people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany, but
argued that
“Nazi policy toward half- and quarter-Jews
(Mischlinge of the first and second degree) was
contradictory and changed over time. Half-Jews
who were not brought up as Jews (Geltungsjuden)
were not deported and killed: There were legal
problems, and Hitler, who did not want to be
bothered by lawyers, declared that he would take a
binding decision only after the final victory.
“Those of military age had to serve in the army both
at the beginning of the war and its end when the
armed forces were depleted. But in between they
were excluded from military service, and they were
not permitted to serve in positions of command.”[3]
Is this historically accurate? What, then, is the
background of all these complex issues and how can one
confront some of the prevailing claims of the Holocaust
establishment?
Albert S. Lindemann
Officers such as Bernhard Losener were well aware that if
Hitler “treated half-Jews as Jews, the armed forces would
probably lose 45,000 soldier s.”[8]
Hitler “allowed some Mischlinge to apply for exemptions
under section 7 of the supplementary decrees of
November 1935. In some cases, if Hitler approved, the
Mischlinge was allowed to call himself or herself an
Aryan.”[9]
Similarly, Jewish historian Sarah Gordon notes,
“In Germany some Jews even supported Hitler despite his
anti-Semitism…Max Naumann, the head of the Association
of German National Jews, ardently solicited support from
the Nazi party after Hitler had come to power, pointing
out the national loyalty of his members and their service
to the German nation.
“Gerhart Hauptmann, a Nobel Prize recipient for
literature, even voted for Hitler. Many Jews were quite
comfortable living in Germany despite latent antiSemitism, whether intellectual or social.”[10]
Hitler “played a direct role” in allowing such Jews to
remain in his service.[11] Those Mischlinge families “had
lived in Germany for generations, and most had lost all
contact with their Jewish heritage. They had helped
develop German society, fought in her wars, and
furthered her culture. Some had not known of their
Jewish historian Bryan Mark Rigg maintains in his Jewish heritage until Hitler came to power.”[12]
study Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers that “numerous areas
relating to the Holocaust and the Nazi era in general Historian Albert S. Lindemann of the University of
California states that some Jews supported the Third
remain l argely unexplained or poorly understood.”[4]
These areas are poorly understood because theories that Reich “at its creation; they had prospered materially in it,
are inconsistent with the prevailing vision of the Holocaust and they remained reticent to criticize it in a fundamental
establishment—even
when
based
on
historical way. ”[13]
documentation—are dismissed without examination. It is What’s more startling is that Hitler “even allowed some to
no accident that Laqueur called Rigg’s study “malevolent, become high-ranking officers. Generals, admirals, navy
more often ignorant, and breathtakingly obtuse in its ship captains, fighter pilots, and many ordinary soldiers
served with Hitler’s personal approva l.”[14] More
conclusions.”[5]
Much of Rigg’s sources are from archival documents and importantly,
personal interviews with those who said they were of “Many German Jews and Mischlinge thought that Hitler
Jewish descent in Nazi Germany, but since Laqueur does based his anti-Semitic tirades on Ostjuden [German and
not seem to be interested in serious research like this, he Eastern Jews] who had emigrated from the ‘land of
Bolshevism.’ The Nazis reinforced this preconception
dismisses Rigg by name-calling.
Rigg argues that “tens of thousands of men of Jewish when they issued decrees against Ostjuden in 1933 and
descent served in the Wehrmacht during Hitler’s rule,” later when they forced eighteen thousand of them to
and according to his best estimate, the number of soldiers leave the Reich in 1938…
of Jewish extraction—a group he terms Mischlinge—was “Dr. Max Naumann, a Jew and a retired World War I army
major and founder of the militant right-wing organization
more than 150,000.[6] He warns readers, however, that
“previous estimates varied and future scholars may of National German Jews, wrote Hitler on 20 March 1935
devise more advanced computations to produce a more that he and his followers had fought to keep Ostjuden out
precise figure. All such efforts should lead to the same of Germany. Naumann felt that these ‘hordes of halfsignificant conclusion: the number of Mischlinge in the Asian Jews’ were ‘dangerous guests’ in Germany and
Wehrmacht was far greater than anyone previously must be ‘ruthlessly expelled.’”[15]
Academically and economically, those Ostjuden made
imagined.”[7]
little progress largely because they learned “Polish
31
Talmudic
barbarism,
as
contrasted
with
refined
German Bildung (education).”[16] Lindemann writes that
“Western Jews often described Ostjuden as parasitic and
filled with hatred of non-Jews, those specifically Jewish
qualities that were the source of the most insistent and
hostile
remarks
by
anti-Semites
about
Jews
generally.”[17]
Howard M. Sachar
The Ostjuden were humiliated by the German Jews, who
viewed them as “irrational, mystical,” and believed that
their “superstitious religion…no longer had a place in a
world based on reason and scientific knowledge.”[18]
Therefore, for the fully assimilated German Jews, “Hitler’s
anti-Semitism” was “a reaction to the culture of the
Ostjuden.”[19] Karl
Marx
himself
despised
the
Ostjuden.[20]
It was no accident, then, that a group of wealthy
intellectual Jews who were already immersed in
Enlightenment thought and practice would despise some
German Jews because of their “primitive lifestyle.”[21]
Wolf Zuelzer, “a 75 percent Jew,” declared that “for the
majority of German Jews, the Orthodox Ostjuden dressed
in his caftan, fur hat and ritual side-locks was a
frightening apparition from the Dark Ages.”[22]
As a result, at the dawn of the twentieth century, “many
of the local Jewish communities in Germany refused to
allow Eastern Jews to vote in community elections on the
grounds that they were not German nationals. ”[23]
Robert Braun, a Mischlinge, noted, “Generally, Mischlinge
are very anti-Semitic.”[24] Unsurprisingly, a number of
Jewish groups strongly supported National Socialism,
because they saw the Ostjuden
“as a grave danger to their social standing who, if allowed
to stay in Germany, would only intensify anti-Semitic
feelings. In several public statements during the 1920s
and 1930s, liberal German Jews labeled Ostjuden ‘inferior’
and asked for state assistance to combat their
immigration…Robert Braun recalled that his Jewish father,
Dr. R. Leopold Braun, was an anti-Semite who did not
like Ostjuden.” [25]
Not only that, most of the Mischlinge “felt Aryan and did
everything they could to disassociate themselves from
Jews and to be viewed as faithful Germans. ”[26]
Adolf Hitler
Hitler’s racial theories did not come out of thin air. In the
early 1920s,
“he directed much of his hatred toward Eastern Jews and
Jewish Communists…he also hated Communists and felt
that Communism was a Jewish movement. He was
present in Munich when Kurt Eisner, whom Hitler called
‘the international Jew,’ led his Socialist revolution from
1918 to 1919. Hitler felt that ‘Judeo-Bolsheviks’ like
Esiner were responsible for and had profited from
Germany’s defeat in World War I. ”[27]
As we saw in previous articles, it was not just Hitler who
saw that Bolshevism would create a nightmare in Europe.
Winston Churchill and many other political leaders drew
similar conclusions. For Hitler, the Jews made matters
worse when the Red Terror, which was dominated by
Jews,
“tried to gain more power, under the leadership of people
of such Russian Jew Eugen Levine…As a witness to this
chaos in Bavaria, Hitler described it as being a ‘rule by the
Jews.’ So, since Hitler felt that Communism was a Jewish
movement and inherently dangerous, he directed his
hatred toward the Jews. ”[28]
It was a sense of Jewish supremacy over the Germans
that accelerated the Nazis to move quickly to develop a
response to Jewish ascendancy. In the early part of the
1900s, Lindemann says,
“Gentiles could hardly miss noting how many liberal
German-speaking Jews had begun to assert that a Jewish
background engendered enlightenment, while a Germanic
heritage was a burden, pulling in the direction of
irrationality and barbarism. As historian Steven Beller has
commented, ‘Jews…began to see themselves as bearers
of the Enlightenment’ in Austria and Germany.” [29]
Lindemman continues,
“In private correspondence, Graetz expressed his
destructive contempt for German values and Christianity
even more forthrightly. In 1868 he had written to Moses
Hess, ‘I am looking forward with pleasure to flogging the
Germans and their leaders—Schleirmacher, Fichte, and
the whole wretched Romantic school.’ In the same letter,
he wrote ‘we must above all work to shatter Christianity.’
”[30]
32
As early as 1902, a Viennese Jew by the name of
Solomon Ehrmann talked about how the world needed to
be “Jewified” in order to be enlightened and in order to
fulfill the goals and purposes of Judaism.[31] This idea
played a major role during the Bolshevik Revolution,
particularly in the lives of non-Jews who joined the
movement.[32]
Yet this side of history has never seen the light of day in
the Holocaust establishment precisely because it would
destroy the building block of this school of thought
completely. Jewish historian Howard M. Sachar has a
chapter on Nazi Germany in his over a thousand-page
work A History of the Jews in America. Incredibly, he
doesn’t even touch on these complex issues.[40]
Instead, he tells us that “anti-Semitic discrimination in all
echelons of the Polish economy kept a quarter million
Jews endlessly dependent on soup kitchens, clinics,
orphanages. ”[34]
What is even more astonishing is that when discussing
the Frankfurt School, Sachar only mentions in passing
that it was an institution funded largely by Jews and for
Jewish leftists, but failed to document their pornographic
and revolutionary activities.
Moreover, he did not even touch on the pornographic
nature of Weimar Germany, which Jewish revolutionaries
made possible and which eventually incited anti-Jewish
reactions among some racialists and other secular
intellectuals and writers of various stripes. On the
contrary, Sachar extols the school: “It was extraordinary
research, in both quantity and quality. ”[35]
Sachar turns a blind eye because his ideology does not
allow him to see the obvious. He keeps propounding the
unconvincing thesis that Jewish persecution was a direct
result of hatred, rather than Jewish revolutionary activity.
Although Sachar mentions that a number of Jews
participated in the Bolshevik Revolution, he tempers his
remarks by saying, “The largest numbers of Russian Jews
had
never
adopted
a
Bolshevik
political
agenda.”[36] According to Sachar, Jews are persecuted
because of their success![37]
interested in mixing but were rather bent on destruction
and domination.”[38] Rigg noted the same thing:
“Quarter-Jew Horst von Oppenfeld, a descendant of the
Jewish Oppenheim family, who was a captain and an
adjutant to Stauffenberg, said that Orthodox Jews
experience so many problems because they do not
assimilate. ‘Their problem,’ he claims, ‘is due to the fact
that they want to be different.’ ”[39]
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen argues in his book Hitler’s Willing
Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust that
anti-Semitism was so ingrained in the entire German
people that not even the ordinary Germans were spared
that irrational hatred.[40]
Other Jewish writers such as Lucy Dawidowicz and Steven
T. Katz ascribe to that thesis.[41] Yehuda Bauer agrees
with many of Goldhagen’s theses and tries mightily to
rescue him from historical oblivion and insanity, although
he criticizes Goldhagen on other issues.[42] Yet
Lindemann tells us a different story:
“Racism and anti-Semitism were, in the eyes of many
German-speaking Jews, more accurately seen as products
of reactionaries and of the mob. Hatred of Jews, they
believed, was most typically to be found in eastern
Europe, or in the less developed parts of the Germanspeaking world. ”[43]
Historically, the Goldhagen thesis suffers badly when one
looks at Jews in Germany in the 1800s. Sarah Gordon, in
a book that was written years before Goldhagen
postulated his historically risible thesis, notes:
“Cultural explanations that include anti-Semitism as
a central reason for Hitler’s electoral success are
inadequate as explanatory tools because of their
nebulous formulation and because counterexamples
from the works of famous scholars and writers
indicate that cultural influences were diverse; for
example, Treitschke wrote an anti-Semitic tract, but
Mommsen wrote a countering statement.
“Thus German’s cultural heritage was not uniformly
anti-Semitic. Moreover, a deep commitment to a
legal and constitutional state was shared by latenineteenth-century liberals and conservatives. Both
groups rejected all attempts to nullify the legal
equality of Jews; not a single law was passed
between 1869 and 1933 to rescind the new
freedoms granted during the foundation of
Germany.
“Of course, in practice there were many instances
of job discrimination, social snobbery, and other
types of hostility toward Jews; these were common
in all Western countries at the time. Nevertheless,
legal emancipation was accepted as part and parcel
of the new state despite pressure from rabid antiSemites to re-impose legal restrictions on Jews.
“Not only liberals and conservatives but also many
Catholics and Protestants were opposed to antiSemitic legislation on ideological or intellectual
grounds…This was obviously a rational pragmatic
stance, but in addition it was an expression of the
humanitarianism embodied in Christian ethics.
”[44]
Before the 1930s, groups that adopted anti-Semitic
propaganda influenced only a fraction of the population,
Despite the fact that many Germans during that and they “never drew a large percentage of the total
time opposed anti-Semitism, it was obvious to them votes. Only in the election of 1930 and later years did the
that “many Jews themselves were not genuinely Nazis succeed in obtaining strong support…and the
33
causative role of anti-Semitism in this success is by no
means clear.” [45] Moreover,
“Between 1887 and 1912 anti-Semitic deputies
represented only 2 percent of all Reichstag delegates,
including all who were reelected, and by 1914 the antiSemitic parties were practically defunct and their press
was in ruins. After World War I additional small antiSemitic parties arose with racist programs, but once again
their electoral strength was less than 5 percent of all valid
votes.
“These small volkisch groups eventually either allied with
and were absorbed by the Nazis or gradually faded into
insignificance. The track record of anti-Semitic parties
was very poor even from their own point of view.” [46]
After laying out the historical background of anti-Jewish
reaction, Gordon concludes that “the attributions of antiSemitism to a uniquely distorted ‘German mind’ or
‘German character’ are largely irrelevant, whether based
on psychology, sociology, intellectual history, or
demonology. ”[47]
If Goldhagen is right, then Jews would never have gotten
so much power in Germany. Gordon states, “German
universities admitted Jews on an equal footing as early as
1790, and Jews were overrepresented among university
professors and students between 1870 and 1933.”
Jews in 1909-1910 were “less than 1 percent of the
population,” yet “almost 12 percent of the instructors at
German universities were Jewish, and an additional 7
percent were Jewish converts to Christianity, so that 19
percent of the instructors in Germany were of Jewish
origin. ”[48]
Rigg writes that “between 1800 and 1900, around
seventy thousand Jews converted to Christianity in
Germany and in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. These
numbers do not include those Jews who left Judaism and
did not embrace another religion. ”[49]
The Jews perceived that the only way they could move
forward was through assimilation, which sometimes
included (false or opportunistic) conversion. For Heinrich
Heine, conversion to Christianity was the “entrance ticket
to European civilization…Most Jews who now converted to
Christianity did so simply as a mode of qualifying per se
and, as often as not, without really relinquishing their
family and social ties with the Jewish community. ”[50]
Many of those Jews, after their conversions, as Michael A.
Meyer puts it, “often associated almost exclusively with
fellow converts. In Germany they were referred to as
Tauffuden, baptized Jews. They had not really become
Christians but had taken on a borderline identity in which
they still feared the verdict of the Gentile.” [51]
Karl Marx’s father, for example, accepted Christianity
more
“for
practical
reasons
than
heart-felt
conviction.”[52] There were also instances where “Jewish
parents would baptize their children in infancy while
retaining their own religious status. ”[53]
In the nineteenth century, the tsar began to discover that
Jews were fomenting revolution and began to establish
policies in an attempt “to Russify the Jews through
conversionist assimilation. ”[54]
Historian Erich E. Haberer writes that this was largely
forced assimilation, but Jewish scholar Benjamin Nathans
seems to show that it was not forced; since the tsarist
government wanted the Jews to integrate, they produced
a number of academic programs that would be suitable to
Jews. One of them was the university, “the setting in
which selective Jewish integration achieved its most
dramatic success. ”[55]
There were also movements among the Jews that sought
to “‘Europeanize’ Russian Jewry through secular education
and general socio-cultural self-regeneration.”[56] The
results of these undertakings were many, but one was
that “Jewish gymnasium students and rabbinical
seminarians” began to hijack nihilism, which was used
“for preaching socialism, propagating revolution,” and so
on. Nihilism was opposed by both Orthodox Jews and
Gentiles.
“On almost every level [the nihilists] had to struggle
against
unyielding
opponents
who
viewed
their
unconventional behaviour and unauthorized activity as
subversive to the established order of traditional Jewish
and official Russian society.
“For those who persevered this was a ‘school of dissent’
which imbued them with a sense of mission, gave them
the stamina to fight on, and trained them to operate in a
hostile environment.”[57]
Heinrich Heine fit the pattern of Jews who converted to
Christianity
for
political
or
“opportunistic
reasons.”[58] This was justified when revolution broke
out in France in the summer of 1830. Heine, who was on
vacation during that time, felt that he too should take up
arms in the revolutionary mode of the time. He wrote,
“Gone is my longing for peace and quiet. Once again I
know what I want, what I ought, what I must do…I am a
son of the revolution and will take up arms. ”[59]
When Moses Mendelssohn, a Jewish composer who
(opportunistically) converted to Christianity, failed to put
his musical talent to revolutionary use, Heine scolded
him. He lamented to one of his friends in 1846,
“I cannot forgive this man of independent means,
because he sees fit to serve the Christian pietists with his
great and enormous talent. The more I admire his
greatness, the more angry I am to see it so iniquitously
misused. If I had the good fortune to be Moses
Mendelssohn’s grandson, I would not use my talents to
set the piss of the Lamb to music.”[60]
Heine “contracted syphilis in his youth and died of the
malady in 1856.”[61] During his last days, when his
health was deteriorating, Heine gave signs that his
conversion was not sincere. He said,
34
“If I could walk with crutches I’d go to church, and
if I could walk without I’d go to the whorehouse.
”[62]
He called Christianity “a gloomy, sanguinary
religion for criminals,” and later noted that “I make
no secret of my Judaism, to which I have not
returned, because I have not left it. ”[63]
Around 1835 Heine met Marx and Engels, and in 1842 he
foresaw that Communism would terrorize the entire
world.
“Though Communism is at present little talked about,
vegetating in forgotten attics on miserable straw pallets,
it is nevertheless the dismal hero destined to play a great,
if transitory role in the modern tragedy…
“[It will be] the old absolutist tradition…but in different
clothes and with new slogans and catch-phrases…there
will then be only one shepherd with an iron crook and one
identically
shorn,
identically
bleating
human
herd…Somber
times
loom
ahead…I
advise
our
grandchildren to be born with a very thick skin.”[64]
Moses Mendelssohn was a strong proponent of
assimilation, and by 1871, Jews “had become Germans in
speech, outlook, and culture, as well as their patriotic
feelings.” [65]
Yet full assimilation was another way to embrace German
mores, which progressively had become more secular and
somewhat Masonic in nature and ideology.
Heinrich Heine
At the dawn of the nineteenth century, Jewish
intellectuals began to embrace Enlightenment principles
and distance themselves from the “darkness” of the
Talmud. Instead of the Talmud, they began to embrace
Godtthold Ephraim Lessing’s play Nathan der Weise, in
which we are told that all the major religions—namely
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—are false.
E. Michael Jones argued that the play was Masonic in
nature.[66] But this form of covert operation was another
way to keep revolutionaries away from ultimate reason
and the cross. Jewish philologist Hermann Steinthal
bragged that “
“Together with the prophets, it is Lessing, Herder, Kant,
Fichte, Schiller, and Goethe and the two Humboldts who
arouse our enthusiasm—and they could not have emerged
from any other people. ”[67]
Assimilation, in many ways, was a break from the
“darkness” of the Talmud. But that form of assimilation
drew many Jewish intellectuals to the Enlightenment
ideology, which we saw was Masonic in its ideological
orientation.
Jewish
historian
Barbara
Tuchman
acknowledged,
“The process begins with the ‘Enlightenment’ initiated by
Moses Mendelssohn in 18th century Germany, which
shattered the protective shell of orthodoxy and opened
the way to acquaintance with Western culture and
participation in Western affairs. The reign of the Talmud
and the rabbis was broken. All over Europe the shattered
windows were flying open. Jews read Voltaire and
Rousseau, Goethe and Kant. The reform movement
followed, shedding the old rituals, trying to adjust
Judaism to the modern world. ”[68]
Many of the Jews at that time saw that “assimilation into
German society was completely consonant with being a
‘good Jew.’ ”[69] They appreciated German culture and
mores, and even contributed to its advancement.
Assimilation was such a major theme among Jewish
communities that Henry Oswalt, a Jew and grandfather of
Michael Hauck, “forbade his daughter to marry a Jew. She
obeyed. The grandfather, whose mother was a cousin of
Heinrich Heine’s, wanted the family to be more German
and accepted by society. ”[70]
Assimilation, to some extent, proved to be better than the
“darkness of the Talmud”:
“In Prussia’s war against France from 1870 to 1871,
12,000 Jews served: 120 were officers and 373 received
the Iron Cross; 483 died or were wounded during the
war…After the war’s victorious conclusion, many Jews felt
their service entitled them to enter the ranks of the
German elite. ”[71]
There were still some doubts about how loyal the Jews
were, particularly since Europe went through a revolution
in 1848, led exclusively by Jews. But Jewish soldiers who
remained loyal to German culture and mores were highly
honored for their service.
“German Jews displayed their willingness to make the
supreme sacrifice for their country time and time again
when Germany went to war. ”[72]
The same thing was happening in France. Jewish
historian Arno Mayer notes, “During the Great War as well
as between the wars, the assimilationists were intensely
patriotic. They were also good republicans, dividing their
support between the traditional right and the moderate
left.” [73]
Suspicions of Jews as revolutionaries gradually faded,
since many proved themselves to be good soldiers,
particularly in Germany.
“In 1760, the ‘enlightened despot’ Frederick the Great
promoted the Jew Konstantin Nathanael von Salemon to
general for his bravery in battle…Frederick also employed
some Schutzjuden, who had become court Jews, as
general purveyors to his army…The king also encouraged
the Jews under his rule to build factories to supply his
army.
“Veitel Ephraim and Daniel Itzig possibly ‘helped Frederick
avoid defeat’ during the Seven Years’ War by supplying
and equipping his troops. In recognition for his
intelligence and contribution to society, Frederick granted
the German-Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn
35
exemptions from some of the laws restricting Jews’
freedom.” [74]
Yet Rigg declares that “this should not imply that
Frederick liked Jews—he in fact detested them. But it
seems his hatred did not cloud his reason. He knew he
needed some Jews to ensure the smooth running of his
country. ”[75]
Arno J. Mayer
Reason certainly belies this claim. If he detested Jews so
much, why would he grant Mendelssohn exemptions from
some of the laws? Surely Frederick was not ignorant of
Jewish revolutionary activities, and it stands to reason
that he probably was suspicious because of that.
But when the Jews proved themselves to be men of
honor, they received the accolades any other German
would. Many of the Jews were so loyal to the German
culture that “on 11 March 1812, Prussia’s first prime
minister, Karl August von Hardenberg, emancipated the
Jews and allowed them to perform military service. ”[76]
“During Prussia’s War of Independence from 1813 to
1815, a conservative estimate of 731 Prussian Jews
served in the war against Napoleon. Five hundred and
sixty-one of them were volunteers. One German Jew
wrote, ‘Who doesn’t rejoice to hear the honorable call to
fight and conquer for the Fatherland…Oh Death for the
Fatherland, you’re the most beautiful fate to befall any
mortal.’” [77] Some of the stories of those Jews who
stood in high regard in the army are worth mentioning:
“Luise Grafemus (real name Esther Manuel) decided to
join the Prussian army after she lost her Jewish husband
in battle. She served during the battles of 1813 and 1814
and later became a Wachtmeister. She was wounded
twice in battle and received the Iron Cross.
“During the battle at Belle-Alliance (Waterloo) in 1815
alone, 55 Jewish soldiers of the reserve militia died in
combat. Prussia decorated 82 Jews with the Iron Cross,
and one received the Pour le Merite decoration between
1813 and 1815…
“Moses Mendelssohn’s youngest son, Nathan, reported for
duty in 1813 and later became a lieutenant. According to
the records, 23 of these Prussian Jewish soldiers became
officers: one major and 22 lieutenants. ”[78]
In World War I, about 10,000 Jews “volunteered for duty,
and over 100,000 out of a total German-Jewish
population of 550,000 served during World War I. Some
78 percent saw frontline duty, 12,000 died in battle, over
30,000 received decorations, and 19,000 were promoted.
“Approximately 2,000 Jews became military officers, and
1,200 became medical officers…One Jewish pilot,
Lieutenant Wilhelm Frakl, died in action and received the
prestigious Pour le Merite…The youngest Jewish volunteer
of the war was thirteen-year-old Joseph Zippes. He lost
both legs during combat. ”[79]
Jews stood with the Germans and showed their patriotism
through their deeds. A letter which was written by a
German Jew declared that Jews and Germans “are united,
one people, one army. In love and loyalty we get along.
We stand together! All differences disappear…there is only
one people in our land! We fight for the kaiser and the
Reich.” [80]
German-Jewish philosopher Hermann Cohen expressed a
similar sentiment. In 1914, one Jew wrote, “The German
Jews stand shoulder to shoulder with their Christian
comrades without anyone asking about ancestry or
religion.”
Sergeant Fritz Beckhardt, “a Jew, flew a plane with a
swastika on its side to display his German pride.”
[81] This certainly puts the Goldhagen thesis in a
historically uncomfortable position.
What should all these historical accounts teach us? First,
it must be pointed out that there were problems with the
assimilation process in Germany.[82]
It must also be re-emphasized that people should be
cherished for who they are, for as Winston Churchill
rightly put it, people can be good, bad, and indifferent.
Churchill moved on to add quite powerfully that
“Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an
individual, on account of race or origin, his right to
be judged on his personal merits and conduct.” [83]
This is certainly an important, and it is quite in line with
what the Church has been saying for thousands of years.
The Church has been echoing that Jewish revolutionaries
embrace subversive movements not because their DNA is
corrupt—a morally disgusting and logically repugnant
argument which has made inroads in racialist literature,
too much to detail here—but because they reject
metaphysical reason or ultimate Logos. Logos, as we shall
see in a future article, is the source of the moral and
political order. Once Logos is rejected, metaphysical and
political chaos reigns.
Moses Mendelssohn
36
And once that metaphysical rejection is codified in a
theological text—the Talmud—the breeding ground for
political, economic, and spiritual revolution is therefore
firmly planted in the minds of those revolutionaries in one
way or another.
But the issue always takes place in the theological realm
and then works its way down to the political and
intellectual realm with severe consequences.
One person who indirectly ended up admitting this point
was one-time cultural phenomenon Elizabeth Wurtzel.
She argued that people like her “are hopeless
Talmudists”[84] who draw their ideological and sexual
politics from the well of the Talmud.
In that sense, Wurtzel is quite in agreement with
Benjamin Disraeli in his 1844 novel Coningsby, in which
he declared that Jewish revolutionaries have always taken
part in revolutionary and intellectual movements in
Europe, and Russia and Germany happened to be two of
their victims. [85]
It must be emphasized again that here we are not fighting
against decent people who embrace docility, civility, and
rationality. We are fighting against a wicked ideology and
the consequences of that weltanschauung.
That wicked ideology is the enemy of the Jewish people
precisely because it always creates anti-Jewish reactions
whenever it is applied logically and consistently. And
flashes of that wicked ideology and double standards are
all over the Ukraine crisis.
[youtube TIMikjs36NM]
------------------------------------------[1] Paul Kendall, “The Jews Who Fought for Hitler: ‘We Did Not Help
the Germans. We Had a Common Enemy,’”Telegraph, March 9, 2014.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Walter Laqueur, “Hitler’s Jews: Max Von Oppenheim and the Myth
of German Jewish Guilt,” Tablet Magazine, August 21, 2013.
[4] Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi
Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German
Military (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 1.
[5] Laqueur, “Hitler’s Jews: Max Von Oppenheim and the Myth of
German Jewish Guilt,” Tablet Magazine, August 21, 2013.
[6] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 1.
[7] Ibid., 51.
[8] Ibid., 96.
[9] Ibid., 98.
[10] Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish
Question” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 47.
[11] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 1, 19-20.
[12] Ibid., 24.
[13] Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of
the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 332.
[14] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 1-2.
[15] Ibid., 12.
[16] Ibid., 10.
[17] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 51.
[18] Rigg, Rescued from the Reich: How One of Hitler’s Soldiers Saved
the Lubavitcher Rebbe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 10.
[19] Ibid., 10.
[20] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 164.
[21] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 12.
[22] Ibid., 12.
[23] Ibid., 12.
[24] Ibid., 24-25.
[25] Ibid., 13.
[26] Ibid., 25.
[27] Ibid., 15.
[28] Ibid., 15.
[29] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 331.
[30] Ibid., 141
[31] Ibid., 331.
[32] Ibid., 443.
[33] See Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in America (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), chapter 14.
[34] Ibid., 465.
[35] Ibid., 751.
[36] Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in the Modern
World (New York: Vintage Books, 2006), 326.
[37] Ibid., 227-228.
[38] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 331.
[39] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 48.
[40] See Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners:
Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York: Vintage Books,
1997).
[41] Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The
Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (New York: Henry Holt, 1998),
7.
[42] See Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2002), chapter five. Even he takes issue with some of
Goldhagen’s citations: “Goldhagen puts all anti-Semitism in the same
basket, including the liberal type that wanted to see the Jews disappear by
assimilation and conversion. He quotes Uriel Tal, but Tal never said that
liberal efforts to assimilate the Jews were the same as extermination
programs” (98).
[43] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 332.
[44] Gordon, The “Jewish Question”, 27.
[45] Ibid., 29.
[46] Ibid., 32.
[47] Ibid., 48.
[48] Ibid., 13.
[49] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 51.
[50] MacDonald, Separation, 220; also Bakan, Freud and the Jewish
Mystical Tradition, 46.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 162.
[53] MacDonald, Separation., 220.
[54] Erich E. Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteeth-Century
Russia (Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9.
[55] Benjamin Nathans, Beyond the Pale: Jewish Encounter with Late
Imperial Russia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 201202.
[56] Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Russia, 11.
[57] Ibid., 16, 17.
[58] Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 581.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid., 582.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid., 584.
[63] MacDonald, Separation, 220.
[64] Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 582-583.
[65] Ibid., 584.
[66] Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 563-566.
[67] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 51-52.
[68] Quoted in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 565.
[69] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 51-52.
[70] Ibid., 54.
[71] Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 70.
[72] Ibid., 66.
[73] Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, 48.
[74] Gordon, The “Jewish Question”, 66, 67.
[75] Ibid., 67.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Ibid., 68.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid., 72.
[80] Ibid.
[81] Ibid., 73.
[82] E. Michael Jones has done a great work analyzing this in chapter 13
of his magnum opus The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. I could not address
all these issues here because time constraints.
37
[83] Winston Churchill, “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: The Struggle for the
Soul of the Jewish People,” Sunday Illustrated Herald, February 8, 1920.
[84] Elizabeth Wurtzel, “Standing Against a Tide of Hatred,” Guardian,
January 16, 2009.
[85] Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby (Boston: Adamant Media
Corporation, 2005), 299.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/29/hitlersjewish-soldiers-part-i/
______________________________________________________________________
Challenging the “Holocaust Uniqueness” Doctrine
By Jonas E. Alexis April 16, 2014
“This new religion is coherent enough to define its
‘antichrists’ (Holocaust deniers), and powerful enough to
persecute them (through Holocaust-denial and hatespeech laws.
“It took me many years to understand that the
Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish
faith, was not an historical narrative, for historical
narratives do not need the protection of the law and
politicians.”[4]
Yeshayahu Leibowitz
The late Christopher Hitchens wrote way back in
2001 in the LA Times that “The Holocaust has
become a secular religion, with state support in the
form of a national museum.”[1]
In a similar vein, Israel Shamir writes that “the cult of
the Holocaust” is actually “an adaptation of the Jewish
spiritual rule of Christian minds, as it replaces Christ with
Israel, Golgotha with Auschwitz, and the Resurrection
with the creation of the Jewish state.
“People who argue with the dogma of the Holocaust are
met with treatment the heretics were given in the days
of yore. They are excommunicated and excluded from
society.”[2]
Our esteemed colleague and perceptive writer Gilad
Atzmon argues that “The Holocaust was a ‘Zionist
victory,’ just as each single rape is interpreted by
feminist separatist ideologists as a verification of their
theories.”[3] Citing Uri Avnery and continuing to cut the
Holocaust establishment to pieces, Atzmon writes,
“‘Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the philosopher who was an
observant Orthodox Jew, told me once: ‘The Jewish
religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that
unifies the Jews around the world apart from the
Holocaust.’
“Professor
Yeshayahu
Leibowitz,
a
Latvian-born
philosopher at the Hebrew University, was probably first
to suggest that the Holocaust has become the new
Jewish religion.
“The Israeli philosopher Adi Ophir also pointed out that
far from being merely a historical narrative, ‘The
Holocaust’
contains
numerous
essential
religious
elements. It has priests (e.g. Simon Wiesenthal, Elie
Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt) and prophets (Shimon Peres,
Binyamin Netanyahu, those who warn of the Iranian
Judeocide to come).
“It has commandments and dogmas (e.g. ‘Never Again’)
and rituals (memorial days, pilgrimage to Auschwitz,
etc). “It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (e.g.
kapos, gas chambers, chimneys, dust, shoes, the figure
of the Musselmann, etc.).
“It also has a temple, Yad Vashem, and shrines—
Holocaust museums—in capital cities worldwide. The
Holocaust religion is also maintained by a massive global
financial network…
Yehuda Bauer
Finally, Atzmon put the final nail in the coffin when he
declares that
“The Holocaust religion is, obviously, Judeo-centric to the
bone. It defines the Jewish raison d’être. For Zionist
Jews, it signifies a total fatigue of the Diaspora, and
regards the goy as a potential irrational murderer.
“This new religion preaches revenge. It could well be the
most sinister religion known to man, for in the name of
Jewish suffering, it issues licenses to kill, to flatten, to
nuke, to annihilate, to loot, to ethnically cleanse. It has
made vengeance into an acceptable Western value…
“In the new religion, instead of old Jehovah, it is ‘the
Jew’ whom the Jews worship: a brave and witty survivor
of the ultimate genocide, who emerged from the ashes
and stepped forward into a new beginning.”[5]
Finally, Jewish historian Tim Cole of the University of
Bristol writes,
“‘Shoah [Hebrew for Holocaust] business’ is big
business…[In]
the
twentieth
century,
the
‘Holocaust’ is being bought and sold. $168 million
was donated to pay for the building of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum on a plot of
Federal Land in Washington, DC.
“Millions of dollars have financed memorial
projects throughout the United States, ranging
from the installation of Holocaust memorials to the
establishing of University chairs in Holocaust
studies.
Steven
Spielberg’s
movie Schindler’s
List netted over $221 million in foreign box offices
and even Academy Awards.”[6]
38
Why has the Holocaust become a secular religion? Why
has this issue become so sensitive to the point that one
ought not to probe historical and rational questions
anymore? How did that come about?
A number of Jewish historians have argued that Nazi
Germany was “unique” and “unparalleled” in history.
According to this dogma, nothing before or after can be
compared to what happened in the Third Reich.
Jewish scholar and prolific writer Jacob Neusner declared
that “the Holocaust…was unique, without parallel in
human history.”[7] Daniel Goldhagen made similar
claims in his book Hitler’s Willing Executioners.
French Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet espoused
similar views.[8] Jewish philosopher Emil L. Fackenheim
of the University of Toronto implicitly argues the same
thing.[9]
Many Jewish writers indirectly advocate this form of
doctrine in one way or another. For Deborah Lipstadt,
downplaying the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust is to be a
Holocaust denier.[10]
German historian Ernst Nolte made the mistake of
comparing the Holocaust to other crimes that have
committed in history, such as Stalin’s extermination of
the Russian people, the Armenian genocide, and Pol Pot’s
crimes against humanity. For this, Lipstadt labeled him a
Holocaust denier. Historian Joachim Fest defended Nolte
on historical and rational grounds, and received the same
treatment.[11]
Abraham H. Foxman declared,
“The Holocaust is something different. It is a
singular event. It is not simply one example of
genocide but a nearly successful attempt on the life
of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God
himself.”[12]
For Historian Steven Katz, “never before has a state set
out…to annihilate physically every man, woman, and
child belonging to a specific people.”[13]
Yet not every historian pays homage to this Holocaust
creed. While declaring that the Holocaust is an important
chapter in human history and that “the depth of pain and
suffering of Holocaust victims is difficult to describe,”
Jewish historian Yehuda Bauer, whose work we shall
examine in the future, admits that
“the Holocaust is certainly not unique, because
‘indescribable’ human suffering is forever there and is
forever being described.”[14]
Peter Novick
In Bauer’s words, “coming up with a remote quasiscientific approach” is “as inhuman as that of those who
committed the crime or of those who stood by and
watched it indifferently.”[15]
The late historian Peter Novick put it quite well when he
wrote,
“In Jewish discourse on the Holocaust we have not just a
competition for recognition but a competition for
primacy. This takes many forms. Among the most
widespread and pervasive is an angry insistence on the
uniqueness of the Holocaust.
“Insistence on its uniqueness (or denial of its
uniqueness) is an intellectually empty enterprise for
reasons having nothing to do with the Holocaust itself
and everything to do with ‘uniqueness.’
“A moment of reflection makes it clear that the notion of
uniqueness is quite vacuous. Every historical event,
including the Holocaust, in some ways resembles events
to which it might be compared and differs from them in
some ways.”[16]
If those words were just assertions built upon assertions
with little or no historical or rational backbone, the
Holocaust establishment would have had solid grounds to
accuse their critics as irresponsible. But as we shall see,
the historical data is just astounding.
39
Stalin killed more than 10 million Russian peasants
in less than three years.[17] Yet many in the
Holocaust establishment desperately and hopelessly try
to get around this fact in order to keep the Holocaust
religion alive and well.
After toe-dancing around Stalin’s mass killings for a while
and obviously seeing that her argument just dropped like
an apple falling from a tree, Deborah Lipstadt declared:
“This is not a matter of comparative pain or competitive
suffering. It is misguided to attempt to gauge which
group endured more. For the victims in all these
tragedies the oppressors’ motives were and remain
irrelevant. Nor is this a matter of head count of victims
or a question of whose loss was larger.
“In fact, Stalin killed more people than did the Nazis. But
that is not the issue. The equivalencies offered
by…historians
are
not
analogous
to
the
Holocaust…Whereas Stalin’s terror was arbitrary, Hitler’s
was targeted at a particular group.”[18]
If that is not silly, I do not know what is. Here was a man
who was responsible for the death of at least sixty million
people, but his terror was arbitrary! Lipstadt here
certainly borders on the delusional as a person who
claims to follow historical accuracies.
Is she actually saying that destroying the lives of those
Russian peasants (kulaks) and dissents “arbitrary”?
Wasn’tdekulakization one
of
Stalin’s
primary
goals?[19] Did Stalin try to pursue those goals regardless
of the cost?[20]
Wasn’t Stalin also targeting particular groups as well?
Didn’t Stalin call his victims “swine,” “dogs,”
“cockroaches,” “scum,” “vermin,” “filth,” “garbage,” and
other names?[21] Did Stalin create a bloody regime that
lasted for more than forty years?[22] If Lipstadt is
prepared to deny all of this, isn’t she assaulting truth
here? Isn’t she a Holocaust denier?
As we shall see, whether Lipstadt likes it or not, her
reasoning here is Talmudic or Rabbinic in nature.
Paul Hollander, a Jewish scholar and writer who fled his
native Hungary because of political persecution,
subscribes to the same ideology, declaring that the Nazis
should never be compared with the Soviets on “moral
equivalence” because, among other things, “Communist
regimes, unlike the Nazis, did not seek to murder
children.”[23]
I just could not hold my laughter here. If Hollander was
some Joe on the street, there would be no problem.
Hollander was a professor of sociology at the University
of Massachusetts and author of numerous books.
How can smart people like him absorb dumb ideas, when
they know perfectly well that those ideas are just plain
stupid? Well, ideology knows no boundary. As noted
historian Steven Rosefielde humorously and beautifully
puts it,
“Even if things got out of hand in the heat of battle, it
could be claimed that kulak extermination wasn’t state
policy. Even if terror and lethal Gulag labor exploitation
occurred, they could be excused as self-defense for
numerous reasons, including the imperative of rabid
socialist constructions. There always seemed to be
extenuating rationalizations.”[24]
Historian J. Otto Pohl writes that “the Soviet Koreans
were the first nationality the Stalin regime deported in its
entirety on the basis of their ethnicity. It was an act of
national repression on a grand scale.”[25]
Historian Norman Naimark of Stanford declares that “a
good argument can be made that Stalin intended to
systematically wipe out the kulaks as a group of
people—not just metaphorically as a class—and that
therefore the result can be considered genocide.”[26]
Later he continued, “The principled abstention from using
the term genocide can serve politicized purposes as
much
as
its
application
to
specific
historical
circumstances.”[27]
As we are beginning to see, the “uniqueness” doctrine is
an ideology, one that has no foundation in historical
scholarship, but only exists in the minds of people like
Lipstadt. It is maintained not because it is intellectually
and morally satisfying, but because it seeks to preserve
the new ethos: the religion of the Holocaust.
By 1937, two years before Hitler came to power, Stalin
had already starved and executed as many as ten million
peasants.[28] This period in history—from 1929-1937—is
known as the Red Holocaust.[29] By 1938, a total of 9.7
million perished, and from 1939 until 1953, another 9
million lost their lives.[30] From 1937-1939, Stalin
executed 50,000 clergymen alone.[31]
Stalin’s terrorism began as early as 1918, when “he
ordered the execution of all suspected counterrevolutionaries. Stalin burned villages in the countryside
to intimidate the peasants and discourage bandit raids on
food supplies a decade before he became Red tsar.”[32]
Even after World War II, Stalin did not stop terrorizing
the peasants.[33] Minority groups such as the Greeks,
Germans, Turks, Orthodox Christians, Lithuanians, and
40
Vlasovites also fell prey to Stalin’s literal ethnic
cleansing.[34]
Lenin, like Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich and other
Jewish revolutionaries, the real enemy was the church.
He passionately declared in 1922,
“Now and only now, when there is cannibalism in the
famine areas and hundreds, if not thousands, of corpses
are lying on the roads, we can (and therefore must)
carry out the confiscation of Church valuables with the
most furious and merciless energy, not stopping at the
crushing of any resistance…
“Therefore I come to the inevitable conclusion that it is
now that we must give the most decisive and merciless
battle to the obscurantist clergy and crush its resistance
with such cruelty that they won’t forget it for several
decades.”[35]
Historian Donald Rayfield of the University of London,
who is not even a church sympathizer, noted,
“In the parishes some 2,700 priests and 5,000 monks
and nuns perished. Across Russia there were 1,400
bloody confrontations between Cheka or Red Army and
parishioners, and over 200 trials.
“On March 20, 1922, the Cheka ‘indicted’ Patriarch
Tikhon for counterrevolutionary activity despite the
latter’s eagerness to compromise; Trotsky wanted to
arrest the entire Holy Synod.”[36]
Senior clerics were arrested in Moscow and some were
shot and sentenced to death.[37]
end, Communist China was responsible for the death of
at least forty million.[42]
It is clear by now that the “uniqueness” doctrine holds no
historical validity. Yet by espousing it, people like
Lipstadt,
Hollander,
Neusner,
and
others
open
themselves up for various cultural interpretations which
say that Jewish blood is more important than Gentile
blood.
This harmonizes with Talmudic reasoning, and there are
examples of rabbis who espouse and even practice that
belief system:
“Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in
Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were
remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl:
‘Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.’
“Rabbi Ido Elba: ‘According to the Torah, we are in a
situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war,
and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.’” On
another occasion, the rabbi declared,
“‘If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, and
is thus part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of
God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA…
“‘If a Jew needs a liver, can he take the liver of an
innocent non-Jew to save him? The Torah would probably
permit that.Jewish life has an infinite value. There is
something more holy and unique about Jewish life than
about non-Jewish life.’”[43]
Steven Steinlight
Norman Naimark
There is no way that the “uniqueness” doctrine can
square historically with Stalin’s Red Holocaust. As
Rosefielde notes,
“Communism is indelibly stained by the Red Holocaust.
Nonetheless, the will to deny, blur, soften, mitigate and
pardon communist high crimes against humanity persists
for complex personal, partisan, academic, cultural,
political and pragmatic reasons.”[38]
According to Rosefielde, Stalin was involved in the ethnic
cleansing of the peasants by violent means, including
executions, terror, and starvation, beginning with an
attempt in 1917.[39] As he puts it,
“The peasantry was the Bolsheviks’ first and primary
target, because it did not fit Lenin’s Marxist paradigm,
founded on the criminalization of private property,
business and entreprenurship.”[40]
We see the same pattern in Communist China, where
Mao “forcibly collectivized the peasantry.”[41] In the
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs for
the American Jewish Committee, stated bluntly,
“I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical
Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish
nationalist, even a quasi-separatist…I was taught the
superiority of my people to the gentiles who had
oppressed us.
“We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy
outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred
might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent,
and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the
lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no
one.”[44]
Michael Chabon of the New York Times concurs:
“As a Jewish child I was regularly instructed, both subtly
and openly, that Jews, the people of Maimonides, Albert
Einstein, Jonas Salk and Meyer Lansky, were on the
whole smarter, cleverer, more brilliant, more astute than
other people.
“And, duly, I would look around the Passover table, say,
at the members of my family, and remark on the
presence of a number of highly intelligent, quick-witted,
41
shrewd, well-educated people filled to bursting with
information, explanations and opinions on a diverse
range of topics.”[45]
Chabon now pokes fun at what he referred to as
“nonsense” and “our own stupidity as a people,”[46] but
this just shows how ingrained the smarter-than-thou
attitude is.
Lipstadt hopelessly writes, “The fate of every Jew who
came under the German rule was essentially sealed. In
contrast, no citizen of the Soviet Union assumed that
deportation and death were inevitable consequences of
his or her ethnic origins.”[47]
Lipstadt has a fantastic imagination, but imagination
cannot be employed in historical and rational discourse.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn disagreed with Lipstadt’s point
when he wrote:
“If I would care to generalize, and to say that the life of
the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and
would not face reproach for an unjust national
generalization. But in the camps where I was kept, it was
different. The Jews whose experience I saw—their life
was softer than that of others.”[48]
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against
Lipstadt’s speculative imagination is proposed by Dr. H.
G. Adler, a Jewish author who was imprisoned in
Theresienstadt concentration camp during the war.
“Certainly there were those among [the Germans] who,
during the years of occupation, were guilty of some
infraction or other, but the majority, among them
children and adolescents, were locked up simply because
they were Germans. Just because they were
German?…That phrase is frighteningly familiar; one could
easily substitute the word ‘Jew’ for ‘German.’
“The rags given to the Germans as clothes were smeared
with swastikas. They were miserably undernourished,
abused, and generally subjected to much the same
treatment one was used to in the German-run
camps…The camp was run by Czechs, yet they did
nothing to stop the Russians from going in to rape the
captive women.”[49]
Lev Kopelev, a Jewish revolutionary who had first-hand
knowledge of what happened to ten million Russian
peasants, said it well:
“You mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We are the
agents of historical necessity. We are fulfilling our
revolutionary duty. We are procuring grain for our
socialist Fatherland.”[50]
Historically and intellectually, this “uniqueness” doctrine
is an abomination, and even Jewish author and journalist
D. D. Guttenplan thinks that the argument works against
those who promote it.[51] But ideologically it is useful,
since it puts Jewish suffering above any other suffering in
human history. This became clear in 2011 when
“Jewish leaders and political groups in Germany
condemned a proposed national day of remembrance for
the 12 million ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern
Europe after World War II.”[52]
Mao Zedong exterminated at least seventy million
people, much more than what is presumed to have
happened in Nazi Germany. The Stalinist and Leninist
regimes exterminated millions more—some historians
have calculated that they destroyed more lives than the
Nazi and Fascist regimes combined.[53] The Black Book
of Communism tells us that Communism is responsible
for taking the lives of approximately one hundred million
people.
So who is responsible for deciding what is unique and
what is not?
If people like Steven Spielberg are really committed to
honoring the lives of those who suffered under violent
regimes, why aren’t there movies for those who lost their
lives under Communist/Stalinist/Socialist regimes? And
what about other countries around the world?
At the end of World War II, some Jewish scholars
asserted that “at least 10 million Chinese were dead and
60 million left homeless. Four million Indonesians were
either killed by the Japanese or died of hunger, disease,
or lack of medical attention; and other Asian countries
suffered similar losses.”[54] Other historians such as
Chinese-American historian Ping-ti Ho agree.[55]
In light of these figures, how can any scholar or historian
be intellectually honest with himself and the rest of the
academic world while maintaining that Jewish suffering is
“unique”? It simply does not add up.
We know that Nazi Germany did exist; we know that
many Jews suffered under Nazi Germany; we also know
that Jews were not the only ones to suffer under Nazi
Germany. No serious historian or person with an ounce
of common sense would deny these basic historical
truths.
But which parts of the popular Holocaust tales are
complete fabrications and which are not? This is where
the historical data, files, and documents come in. Real
history should not hinge on political correctness. To
quote Gilad Atzmon again:
42
“To a certain extent, the Holocaust religion signals the
final Jewish departure from monotheism, for every Jew is
potentially a little God or Goddess. Abe Foxman is the
God of anti-defamation, Alan Greenspan the God of ‘good
economy,’ Milton Friedman is the God of ‘free markets,’
Lord Goldsmith the God of the ‘green light,’ Lord Levy
the God of fundraising, Paul Wolfowitz the God of US
‘moral interventionism.’
“AIPAC is the American Olympus, where mortals elected
in the US come to be for mercy, forgiveness for being
Goyim and for a bit of cash…
“Thus the Holocaust religion is protected by laws,
while every other historical narrative is debated
openly by historians, intellectuals and ordinary
people. The Holocaust sets itself as an eternal truth
that transcends critical discourse…
“As we can see, the Holocaust functions as an
ideological interface. it provides its follower with
a logos….To a certain extent, we are all subject to
this religion; some of us are worshippers, others
are just subject to its power.
“Those who attempt to revise Holocaust history are
subject to abuse by the high priests of this religion.
The Holocaust religion constitutes the Western
‘real.’ We are neither allowed to touch it, nor are
we permitted to look into it. Very much like the
ancient Israelites who were to obey their God but
never question Him, we are marching into the
void.”[56]
If you think that Atzmon is just doing some intellectual
exercise here, the New York Times came out with an
article last month entitled, “The Line to Kiss [Sheldon]
Adelson’s Boot.” Perhaps it is pertinent to quote it in part
here:
“It’s hard to imagine a political spectacle more loathsome
than the parade of Republican presidential candidates
who spent the last few days bowing and scraping before
the mighty bank account of the casino magnate Sheldon
Adelson.
“One by one, they stood at a microphone in Mr. Adelson’s
Venetian hotel in Las Vegas and spoke to the Republican
Jewish Coalition (also a wholly owned subsidiary of Mr.
Adelson), hoping to sound sufficiently pro-Israel and prointerventionist and philo-Semitic to win a portion of Mr.
Adelson’s billions for their campaigns.
“Gov. John Kasich of Ohio made an unusually bold
venture into foreign policy by calling for greater
sanctions on Iran and Russia, and by announcing that
the United States should not pressure Israel into a peace
process. (Wild applause.) ‘Hey, listen, Sheldon, thanks
for inviting me,’ he said. ‘God bless you for what you do.’
“Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin brought up his father’s
trip to Israel, and said he puts ‘a menorah candle’ next to
his Christmas tree. The name of his son, Matthew,
actually comes from Hebrew, he pointed out.
“Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey also described his trip
to Israel, but then did something unthinkable. He
referred to the West Bank as the ‘occupied territories.’ A
shocked whisper went through the crowd.
“How dare Mr. Christie implicitly acknowledge that
Israel’s presence in the West Bank might be anything
less than welcome to the Palestinians? Even before Mr.
Christie left the stage, leaders of the group told him he
had stumbled, badly.
“And sure enough, a few hours later, Mr. Christie
apologized directly to Mr. Adelson for his brief attack of
truthfulness.”[57]
To sum up, the Holocaust establishment settled on the
uniqueness doctrine long ago because they were
43
determined to force that religious dogma on everyone.
But that dogma has also taken a contradictory life of its
own.
If the Holocaust is unique, why can’t the Zionist world
stop invoking Hitler when they want to demonize
countries or people they do not like? Why is Vladimir
Putin the new Hitler? Why did Hilary Clinton call Putin the
new Hitler?
Why did Rick Santorum and his co-writer Joel C.
Rosenberg, a former aide to Benjamin Netanyahu, also
called both Putin and Iran two new Hitlers? Why do they
keep telling us that the Middle East has countless Hitlers
who ought to be expunged? Jewish neocon Max Boot has
recently declared that
“It is by now obvious that the West’s self-restraint—so
reminiscent of similar self-restraint after Adolf Hitler’s
military buildup, militarization of the Rhineland,
Anschluss with Austria, and seizure of the Sudetenland—
has not convinced Putin to exercise self-restraint in
response.”[58]
But the Holocaust is unique! How can those people
maintain those contradictory and grossly untenable ideas
while their heads do not explode?
As it turns out, whenever the neo-Bolsheviks want to
commit murder and destroy countries in the literal sense,
they will continue to make use of Hitler. Whenever they
want to torture prisoners[59] and sexually humiliated
people, Hitler’s name will certainly pop up.
The New York Times itself reported last month that “the
Syrian civil war has ground down a cultural and political
center of the Middle East, turning it into a stage for
disaster and cruelty on a nearly incomprehensible
scale.”[60]
The Times continued in another article,
“The Syrian civil war’s impact on the health of Syria’s
children is far more insidious than has been widely
understood, a leading children’s advocacy group reported
Sunday, with large numbers dying or at risk from chronic
and preventable diseases that have flourished because
the country’s public health system has basically
collapsed.
“…at least 1.2 million children have fled to neighboring
countries, that 4.3 million in Syria need humanitarian
assistance and that more than 10,000 have died in the
violence.”[61]
Yet the time will never come out and say that this plan
was carefully orchestrated by the neoconservatives, most
specifically by people like Daniel Pipes.
I perceive that the Times reported some of those
statistics because they still want America to invade Syria
and continue to support the rebels/terrorists. After all,
the Associated Press has recently reported that the
Syrian jihadists have already put to use some of the
weapons the U.S. has been sending to that region.
Keith David Watenpaugh of the University of California
could talk about “the arrival of sanguinary jihadist
fighters, and the West’s inaction” in Syria,[62] but he
could never addressed the issue that America has been
supporting those jihadist fighters in that region for years.
And while Hillary, Santorum, and Rosenberg are afraid
that Russia or Iran might be a resurrection of Nazi
Germany, the Israeli regime is continuing to build its
concentration camp in Gaza. ABC News itself has recently
reported:
“Israel has barred 30 runners, including an Olympic
athlete, from leaving the Gaza Strip to participate in a
marathon later this week, highlighting Israel’s tight
restrictions on travel in and out of the Hamas-ruled
territory…”
But who is paying the bill? Who is going to suffer while
concentration camps are up and running? Hold your
breath:
“American workers would have to cough up a one-time
‘debt reduction fee’ of $106,000 to pay off the nation’s
debt that has grown 58 percent under President Obama,
according to Harvard University’s Institute of Politics
annual report on the USA.”[63]
At the same time, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, an
orthodox Jew, “signed a $1 billion loan guarantee to
Ukraine Monday, as the U.S. tried to bolster that nation’s
efforts to resist Russia’s push into the region.”
[youtube 2FyR2JacPXQ]
--------------------------------------[1] Christopher Hitchens, “The Strange Case of David Irving,” LA
Times, May 20, 2001.
[2] Israel
Shamir, Cabbala
of
Power (Charleston,
SC:
BookSurge, 2007), 91.
[3] Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who?: A Study of Jewish
Identity Politics (Winchester & Washington: Zero Books, 2011),
43.
[4] Ibid., 148.
[5] Ibid., 149.
[6] Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to
Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold (New York:
Routledge, 2000), 1.
[7] Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, 42.
[8] Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the
Denial of the Holocaust (New York: Columbia University Press,
1992), 15-17.
[9] Emil L. Fackenheim, To Mend the World: Foundations of
Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1994).
[10] Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, 70-71.
[11] Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Assault on
Truth (New York: Penguin, 1994), 211.
[12] Abraham Foxman, ADL on the Frontline, January 1994, 2.
[13] Quoted in Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American
Life (New York: Mariner Books, 1999), 196.
[14] Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, 7.
[15] Peter Steinfels, “Ideas and Trends,” NY Times, November
12, 1989.
[16] Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 9.
[17] See for example Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, et
al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror,
Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999);
44
Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2008); Steven Rosefielde, Red
Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
[18] Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 212-213.
[19] See for example Hiroaki Kuromiya, The Voices of the Dead:
Stalin’s Great Terror in the 1930s (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2007).
[20] See for example Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism:
Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
[21] See
Norman
Naimark, Stalin’s
Genocide (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2010).
[22] Hiroaki Kuromiya, Stalin (New York: Routledge, 2005),
201.
[23] Quoted in Naimark, Stalin’s Genocide, 126.
[24] Rosefielde, Red Holocaust, 4.
[25] J. Otto Pohl, Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 19371949 (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 1999), 9.
[26] Naimark, Stalin’s Genocides, 63.
[27] Ibid., 124.
[28] Rosefielde, Red Holocaust, 40.
[29] Ibid., 50.
[30] Ibid., 20.
[31] Ibid., 44.
[32] Ibid., 42.
[33] Ibid., 46.
[34] Ibid., 79-80.
[35] Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and
Those Who Killed for Him (New York: Random House, 2005),
126.
[36] Ibid., 126.
[37] Ibid, 126-127.
[38] Rosefielde, Red Holocaust, 7.
[39] Ibid., 35.
[40] Ibid., 35-36.
[41] Ibid., 103.
[42] See Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine.
[43] Shahak and Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel,
43, 62.
[44] Stephen Steinlight, “The Jewish Stake in America’s
Changing Demography : Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration
Policy,” Center for Immigration Studies, October 2001.
[45] Michael Chabon, “Chosen, but Not Special,” NY Times, June
4, 2010.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 212.
[48] Nick Paton Walsh, “Solzhenitsyn Breaks Last Taboo of the
Revolution,” Guardian, January 25, 2003.
[49] Alfred-Maurice De Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic
Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York: Palgrave,
2006), 97.
[50] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2004), 230.
[51] Ibid., 295-296. Guttenplan’s answer as to why many are
still pushing this is “perhaps because there is no guarantee an
appeal not grounded in guilt will be heard either.”
[52] “Jewish leaders slam memorial day for expelled
Germans,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 17, 2011.
[53] For further research, see for example John Arch Getty and
Roberta
Thomson
Manning,
ed., Stalinist
Terror: New
Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
[54] Goodman and Miyazawa, Jews in the Japanese Mind, 136137; the authors got these figures from John W. Dower’s War
Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1986); see also Werner Gruhl, Imperial Japan’s
World War Two (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2010).
[55] See for example Ping-ti Ho, Studies on the Population of
China, 1368-1953 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959).
[56] Atzmon, The Wandering Who?, 150, 152.
[57] David Firestone, “The Line to Kiss Sheldon Adelson’s
Boots,” NY Times, March 31, 2014.
[58] Max Boot, “The West Is Emboldening Putin,” Commentary,
April 14, 2014.
[59] For a recent development, see for example Spencer
Ackerman, “Senate Torture Report Leaked CIA and White House
Under Pressure,” Guardian, April 11, 2013; Ali Watkins,
Jonathan S. Linday, and Marisa Taylor, “CIA’s Use fo Harsh
Interrogation Went Beyond Legal Authority, Senate Report
Says,” McClatchy Newspaper, April 11, 2014.
[60] Anne Barnard, “Three Years of Strife and Cruelty Puts Syria
in Free Fall,” NY Times, March 17, 2014.
[61] Rick Gladstone, “Report Cities ‘Devastating Toll’ on Health
of Syria’s Children,” NY Times, March 9, 2014.
[62] Keith
David
Watenpaugh,
Syria’s
Lost
Generation,” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 3, 2013.
[63] Paul Bedard, “Harvard Study: Your Share of the Federal
Debt Is $106,000,” Washington Examiner, April 10, 2014.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/16/challengingthe-holocaust-uniqueness-doctrine-part-v/
____________________________________________________________________
Concentration Camps, Nazi Collaborators,
and Zionist Contradictions
By Jonas E. Alexis, April 20, 2014
“The attributions of anti-Semitism to a uniquely distorted ‘German mind’ or ‘German
character’ are largely irrelevant, whether based on psychology, sociology, intellectual
history, or demonology.” Historian Sarah Gordon[1]
We must never forget that Jews were not the only
ones to be sent to concentration camps. There
were Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, ordinary
Germans, political dissidents, Communists, and
even homosexuals.
Even Richard J. Evans, one of the key figures in the
Holocaust establishment, admits that there were at least
190,000 German “criminal offenders” by 1945. [2]
There were several concentration camps designated for
dissenters, Catholics and others, such as Dachau.
According to Paul Berben, there were four main
categories of prisoners: “the ‘Politicals,’ the ‘Racials,’ the
‘Criminals’ and the ‘Anti-Socials.’ The ‘Politicals’ formed
the largest group. ”[3] The Politicals were exclusively
“German Communists and Social Democrats who actively
opposed the seizure of power by the National Socialists.
They were considered to be dangerous opponents and
were treated as such throughout their stay in Dachau.
But other opposition groups, such as Conservatives and
Monarchists, were also persecuted.
“Over the years there came to the camp men who had
been found guilty of all kinds of transgressions of the
new laws and regulations promulgated by the Nazi
regime.
“Some, for example, had listened to foreign radio
stations, some had simply had disagreements with some
authorities, others had made unfavorable remarks about
Nazism and had been denounced.” [4]
There were also priests who were part of the political
group.[5] By 1937, the Catholic Church overwhelmingly
opposed National Socialism. In retaliation
“schools were shut, Catholic organizations and works
were banned, religious communities were abolished and
their property seized, children were separated from the
45
Church and their families, the
responsible for their upbringing.
State
alone
being
“At the same time the cunning propaganda was used
systematically to denigrate the Church, the clergy and
religious observance. Foul accusations were made, and a
series of trials was held to show members of the clergy
as a body of money traffickers who were corrupting
youth…Finally the famous encyclicla Mit brennender
Sorge of 1937 solemnly denounced the pagan ideology of
Nazism and its vile practices.
“The Vatican’s action did not put a stop to persecution.
Far from it. Nazi government denounced the Church as
the enemy of the nation more rigorously than ever.
Hundreds of members of the clergy were arrested and
sent to concentration camps, where a large number met
their deaths.
“After playing a waiting game at the start, some bishops,
first and foremost the Bishop of Munster, Mgr von Galen,
protested against the doctrine of blood and race and
against the new paganism…He publicly denounced Nazi
crimes, in particular euthanasia. ”[6]
The second group was the racial group, and it is where
numerous Jews fit in.[7]Jews, however, were not the
only group to be part of the racial category. Gypsies
were also taken to Dachau for the same reason.[8]
The third group was the Criminals, who “were far less
numerous at Dachau than the ‘politicals.’ On 26th April
1945 they numbered only 759, a large number of them
having been enrolled in S.S. formations or sent to other
camps. ”[9]
The Anti-social group was “an extremely ill-assorted
group in which were to be found beggars, hawkers,
tramps, workers who had left their jobs or had had a row
with their employers. Men who had simply wished to
defend their rights as working people, when promises
made to them had been broken, were also considered
anti-social.
“There were men too who had been wrongly denounced
or who had committed some minor transgression which
in no way justified their being considered ‘anti-social.’ As
in the case of the criminals distinctions could be made
between them, for while some were genuinely ‘antisocial,’ others beh aved well.”[10]
The Jehovah’s Witnesses were not part of any of the
groups mentioned above, but “were banned in Germany
from
1933.”[11] Like
the
Jehovah’s
Witnesses,
homosexuals were not part of any group, but were
imprisoned.[12]
There were other unfortunates as well.[13] In the end,
the prisoners who stayed at Dachau during its twelve
years did not amount to millions.[14]
In general, the Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
homosexuals, political dissidents, and gypsies were
sent to Dachau. But they were far from the only
groups. Dr. Johannes Neuhausler, a Catholic priest
who was at Dachau from 1941 until 1945, wrote
that there were people there from various parts of
the world:
Albanians,
Americans,
Arabians,
Armenians,
Belgians,
Bulgarians,
Danes,
Dutchmen,
Englishmen,
Estonians,
Finns,
Frenchmen,
Germans, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians, Russians,
Slovacs, Slovenes, Spaniards, Swedes, Swiss, and
Turks. [15]
Dachau’s prisoners did not have it easy: “The prisoners’
clothing was clearly inadequate and could not protect
them from the rigours of the winter. As they did not have
changes of clothing they often had to spend the whole
day and even the night in wet clothes.”[16]
But since “living conditions in these subsidiary camps
varied greatly according to the way they were laid out,”
there were a few things that were available in many of
those camps.
For example, “a few sporting and cultural activities were
authorized. Officially the S.S. could no longer maltreat
the inmates as they liked. But the disciplinary regime
remained very hars h.”[17]
In the autumn of 1944, many prisoners in Dachau
suffered, since Germany was on the brink of losing and
since various parts of Europe was in chaos.[18] But
many prisoners still exercised some rights, for “money
brought on arrival and any that was subsequently sent to
a prisoner was credited to him, and he could only draw
15 R.M. monthly. As some prisoners had considerable
sums of money, especially in the early years, the S.S.
conducted profitable financial transactions.
“When in 1942 the system of ‘gift coupons’ was
instituted, the prisoners could no longer have money in
their possession. The money in their account had to be
used for the purchase of articles obtainable at the
canteen, another course of considerable profit to the
camp administration. ”[19]
Berben notes that
“theatrical entertainments, concerts, revues and
lectures were arranged too. Among the thousands
of men who lived in the camp there were all sorts
46
of talents, great and small, to be found: famous
musicians, good amateur musicians, theatre and
musical artists.
“Many of these men devoted their time in the most
admirable way to gain a few moments of escape for
their comrades in misery, and to keep up their
morale. And these activities helped too to create a
feeling of fellowship. ”[20]
Surprisingly,
“the camp had a library which started in a modest
way but which eventually stocked some fifteen
thousand volumes. It had been formed with the
books brought in by prisoners or sent to them by
their families, or from gifts. There was a very
varied choice, from popular novels to the great
classics, and scientific and philosophical works.
“Only books in German and at the most a few
dictionaries were allowed, but there were some
‘forbidden’ volumes there too, whose bindings had
been camouflaged by the prisoner-librarians and
which received particular attention from those who
were ‘in the know.’
“The intellectuals in the camp kept the catalogues
up to date and were in charge of lending out the
books. Unfortunately, it was not possible for more
than a very few prisoners to do any reading, so it
was mainly only those lucky enough to be attached
to the library who benefited from it.
“Yet it is astonishing to learn that some men in
spite of their miserable convicts’ existence
nevertheless found the energy to take an interest
in the arts, in science and in philosophical
problems.” [21]
Correspondence was allowed, although there were
regulations.[22]
In addition, letters sent to individual families “had to be
written in German and to one single recipieent. Contents
had to deal only with family matters and no reference at
all was permitted to life in the camp, or the letter was
not sent off. ”[23]
During the last years, probably from 1939 until 1944,
“it was decreed that a prisoner could send or receive two
letters or two cards per month. He had to write in ink,
very legibly, on the fifteen lines of each page of a letter.
His correspondent could only use plain paper, and double
envelopes were not allowed. ”[24]
The S.S. probably adopted this petty censorship for
various reasons. But, as already suggested, not all the
camps were the same, and each camp was
“influenced by a number of factors, such as: when it was
formed, its position, the type of work, the number and
nationality of its prisoners, or the behaviour of the S.S.
officers and other ranks, of the Kapos and civilian
personnel, and so on.”[25]
Berben recounts that “the food was of course deplorable:
soup with no nutritive value, containing only cabbage
and a few bits of potato, and bread which was forever
being reduced in quantity, until by the end it consisted of
one eighth of a 30 lb. loaf. There were about 400 plates
among 3,000 people.”[26]
During that time, typhus broke out, and killed nearly
3,000 men. “When Captain Barnett, an American
member of the War Crimes Investigation Commission,
visited the camp, which the S.S. had set on fire, he found
two ditches each containing between 2,000 and 2,500
corpses and he count ed a further 268 corpses scattered
over the compound.”[27]
“My Precious”
Putting all the pieces together, can popular historians
in good conscience ignore these facts and simply focus
on Jewish exterminations?
Is it historically fair to deliberately dismiss non-Jews in
the camps and focus on one particular people? In his
defense, Jewish historian Yehuda Bauer wrote,
“‘Aryan’ actually had only the quality of distinguishing it
from ‘non-Aryan’; the only non-Aryan was the Jew. AntiSemitism was therefore not a result of Nazi racism, but
the obverse was true: racism was a rationalization of
Jew-hatred. ”[28]
The only way that this theory would work is if the Nazis
only focused on Jews only. And here is the perennial
contradiction that the Holocaust establishment has yet to
answer properly:
If the Simon Wiesenthal Center is really pursuing justice
and going after Nazi collaborators, shouldn’t the
organization be in the business of charging Hollywood
directors and producers as well? Haven’t some scholars
argued that Hollywood directors collaborated with Nazi
Germany?[29]
Why did those directors never get prosecuted and
continue to make millions of dollars working with Nazis
while innocent people like Frank Walus were being
prosecuted and persecuted?
The answers to those questions are pretty simple: the
Holocaust industry, as Norman Finkelstein would have
put it, is a colossal hoax and fabrication.[30] The
definition of a Nazi or terrorist group has taken a
paradigm shift.
[youtube zgzVE-PzCaY]
A person is or is not a Nazi because the Holocaust
establishment tells us so; a terrorist group like the
Syrian rebel is not a terrorist group because the neocons
change the name of the game.
In other words, the Zionist world is like Gollum in J. R. R.
Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, who dialectically likes the
ring of power and hates it at the same time.
“It was the one thing he loved, his ‘precious,’ and
he talked to it, even when it was not with him….the
thing was eating up his mind, of course, and the
torment had become almost unbearable…He hated
the dark, and he hated light more: he hated
everything, and the Ring most of all.
47
“‘What do you mean,’ said Frodo. ‘Surely the Ring
was his precious and the only thing he cared for?
But if he hated it, why didn’t he get rid of it, or go
away and leave it?’
‘‘You ought to begin to understand, Frodo…He
hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved
himself.”[31]
The Zionist world and the sexual debauchery which
Wilhelm Reich had unleashed upon priests and nuns work
in a similar way. Reich and the sexual culture told priests
and nuns to act upon their sexual impulses, but when
priests and nuns responded by saying, “We’ll be glad to
do so,” the same sexual culture gets to tell priests and
nuns that they are wicked people by molesting boys.
Bryan Singer
The sexual culture can defend Woody Allen, Roman
Polansky, and more recently director of X Men: Days of
Future Past Brian Singer, but priests and nuns ought to
be put on trial. As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“The same media which automatically assumes that
every Catholic priest accused of abuse is guilty as
charged lets Hollywood celebrities off the hook by
insisting that they are innocent until proven guilty. ”[32]
Will the media eventually condemn Singer? Will they
pursue further investigation on the matter?
“The plaintiff, Michael Egan, claims he was 15 years
old when Singer forcibly sodomized him, among other
allegations. Egan’s lawyers, led by Jeff Herman, allege
that Singer provided him with drugs and alcohol and flew
him to Hawaii on more than one occasion in 1999.
“His suit claims battery, assault, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and invasion of privacy by
unreasonable intrusion, and it seeks unspecified
damages.”
Egan declared, “I can now stand in front of you all today
and say, I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse.
Some people don’t have a choice to say that. Some end
up dead.”
[youtube x75fEjGTkSM]
There is no sign that Singer will be proved guilty in the
foreseeable future. Why? Because he is too powerful. He
is untouchable. It is the same thing with Woody Allen.
Allen, who had a “persistent fascination” with incest and
who got immersed in psychoanalysis for over thirty
years, can screw Dylan Farrow and get away with it
pretty easily.
Allen even got the support of Jewish actresses such
as Scarlett Johansson and got the opportunity to defend
himself in the New York Times,[33] but priests have no
chance.
“The double standard is impossible to ignore. In
Philadelphia, ADL board member and DA, Lynn Abrams
announced that she was going to investigate clergy
sexual abuse, but only the Catholic Church got
investigated.” [34]
But Dylan Farrow could hardly be the only girl to get
screwed by Allen. Mia Farrow, who fell in love with Allen
in 1980, adopted 14 kids, and one of them happened to
be Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi was another fresh blood.
Mia Farrow, who discovered that Allen had also a
fascination with incest, told him, “You’re not supposed to
fuck the kids.” In respond, Allen declared, “I know I did a
bad thing.”[35] All right. Did Allen get to be exposed like
priests who got involved in sexual harassment and
abuse?
Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen
In a nutshell, the sexual culture loves sodomy and
hates it at the same time. If priests commit sodomy, that
is a wicked act and ought not to be tolerated. If Bryan
Singer or Michael Jackson commits sodomy, that is a libel
which ought to be expunged from the minds of decent
people.
In the same way, the Zionist world loves Nazis and hates
them at the same time; they like terrorists and hate
them at the same time. They cannot let them go. They
cannot live without them. Nazis and terrorists are their
precious. They will not give their precious away precisely
because the stakes are too high.
How else would Zionism continue to manipulate the
West, most specifically America? How would the
neoconservatives continue to write palpable defense of
the Syrian terrorists who, in the eyes of the Syrian
people, are destroying the country (with the help of
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and America)?[36]
How would the neocons continue to lambaste Iran, which
is ahead of schedule with respect to the nuclear deal?
[37] How would the neoconservatives write diatribes
against Putin virtually every other day in magazines and
newspapers such as Commentary, the Weekly Standard,
the National Review, FrontPage Magazine, the American
Thinker, theWashington Post, the New York Times, etc.
?[38]
How would they continue to kill innocent civilians in
places like Yemen? How would the architects of the CIA’s
“enhanced interrogation” technique James Mitchell and
48
Bruce Jessen, who had very little knowledge of terrorism
in the Middle East,[39] go around defending torture
without going to jail?[40]
How would Daniel Pipes argue that America should
support both the Syrian terrorists and Assad at the same
time? How would Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem
Post continue to label people like Pat Buchanan and Rand
Paul anti-Semites?[41]
The Ring of power devoured Gollum and in process
turned him into a monster. Talmudic disputations and
interpretations have been devoured people like Pipes for
centuries and, in the process, they have abandoned
moral and practical reasoning.
This modus operandi of course has sent shockwave
among some perceptive observers since the inception of
neoconservatism. The late Russell Kirk himself was
frightened to see where the neoconservative movement
was going, people whom he viewed primarily as of
“Jewish stock” and who “recruited some Protestant and
Catholic auxiliaries.”[42] Kirk continued,
“How earnestly they founded magazine upon magazine!
How skillfully they insinuated themselves into the
councils of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations! How
very audaciously some of them, a decade ago,
proclaimed their ability to alter the whole tone of
the New York Times. ”[43]
They do not want to alter just the New York Times but
much of the world. Once again, Ukraine is a classic
example.
After sleeping with neo-Nazis for months in Ukraine, the
Zionist world is now telling us that the Pro-Russian
government is forcing Jews to register. How did they get
that reliable source? From the Israeli regime.
John Kerry quickly used that opportunity to blast
the pro-Russian government, saying that it is
“grotesque” and ‘beyond unacceptable.”
Warning: fake document
Jillian Kay Melchior of National Review, who struggled
mightily to string two rational thoughts together, also
used that opportunity to score some points on Russia,
saying things like
“The forced registration of Jews in Donetsk may well
offer some insight into Russia’s totalitarian mindset,
which is deeply rooted in the history of the last century.
“It may also be indicative of the problems Ukraine faces
as the most corrupt nation in Europe: It’s possible this is
a money-making scheme by corrupt Donetsk officials
who want to pocket registration fees. Either way, if it’s
coming from separatists, it’s a bad sign that Jews are
being singled out.”[44]
The propaganda turned out to be a complete hoax and
fabrication.[45]
“A Ukrainian rabbi whose congregation was the target of
an anti-Semitic leaflet that drew global media interest
and condemnation from the U.S. government believes it
was a hoax and wants to put the matter to rest.
“But five days after the incident in the restive eastern
city of Donetsk, Ukraine’s prime minister, anxious to
maintain U.S. support against Russia, issued a statement
accusing Moscow and told a U.S. TV channel he would
find the ‘bastards’ responsible.”
Could it be that the prime minister was one of the
“bastards” or accomplices who put this stuff out for the
Israeli regime?
In any event, the Israeli regime did not even send an
apology to anyone who bought the lie hook, line, and
sinker. The Israeli regime’s covert operation in the region
is not a surprise at all. As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“As if to prove that politics continue to make
strange bedfellows, Israeli soldiers were also
involved in the Maidan square demonstrations
fighting alongside the Ukrainian fascists.
“In an interview with the Jewish Telegraph
Agency, an officer in the Shu’alei Shimshon
reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry
brigade of the IDF explained how he headed a
force of 40 men and women, ‘including several
fellow IDF veterans,’ in violent clashes with
Ukrainian government forces, clashes which
eventually brought down the government.
“Just what their role was and whether they were
involved in criminal activity, like the sniper fire
that killed 100 demonstrators and police, remains
unclear at this point. What is clear is Delta’s (the
pseudonym for the IDF officer) willingness to work
with anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis to achieve common
political goals:
“As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from
activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist
party that has been frequently accused of antiSemitism and whose members have been said to
have had key positions in organizing the opposition
protests.
“‘I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders
from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish,
and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’ he
said. ‘What they’re saying about Svoboda is
exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like
them because they’re inconsistent, not because of
[any] anti-Semitism issue. ’”[46]
The CIA has been doing covert operations in Ukraine as
well. But when Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev
pointed this out, David M. Herszenhorn of the New York
Times accused him of appealing to conspiracy theory. He
wrote,
“And so began another day of bluster and hyperbole, of
the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories,
49
overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about
the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from
the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on
state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day
after day, week after week.”[47]
It certainly cannot get any better. CIA director John
Brenan went to Ukraine
and Washington even planned to deliver “non-lethal
weapons to the time changers,” but that too is
conspiracy theory. Even Forbes has declared that Brenan
intended to deliver non-lethal weapons—and “that
remains Washington’s official position. ”[48]
Senator Chris Murphy told MSNBC, who also is a puppet
of the Zionist system, found it quite shocking that Brenan
would go to Ukraine during this critical time.
“What message does it send to have John Brennan, the
head of the CIA in Kiev, meeting with the interim
government? Does that not confirm the worst paranoia
on the part of the Russians and those who see the Kiev
government as essentially a puppet of the West?
“I don’t know the wisdom of having Brennan there. We
ultimately don’t want this to be viewed as a proxy fight
between the United States and Russia.”
Herszenhorn did not appeal to anti-Semitism this time
because that would quickly disarm his point, but
conspiracy theory was his next logical step, since reason
and evidence obviously abandoned him.
Paul Craig Roberts responded, “Herszenhorn dismisses
reports of extreme nationalist neo-nazi Russophobia as
‘sinister claims’ and regards the Washington-imposed
unelected government in Kiev as legal. However,
Herszenhorn regards governments formed as a result of
referendums to be illegal unless approved by
Washington.
“The Western World is the World of the Matrix protected
by the Ministry of Propaganda. Western populations are
removed from reality. They live in a world of propaganda
and disinformation. The actual situation is far worse than
the “Big Brother” reality described by George Orwell in
his book, 1984.
“The ideology known as neoconservatism, which has
controlled US governments since Clinton’s second term,
has the world set on a path to war and destruction.
Instead of raising questions about this path, the Western
media hurries the world down the path. ”[49]
In a nutshell, working with neo-Nazis is no big deal, but
labeling Putin a Nazi or a Hitler is politically acceptable.
For Jay Haug of the neoconservative flagship
the American Thinker, Hitler’s and Putin’s tactics are
essentially the same.[50]
But Haug does not even remotely suggest that Jewish
neocon Victoria Nuland is a neo-Nazi collaborator! When
I contacted him and pointed this out, his response was
quite shocking: “Who is she? No idea what you are
talking about.”
Here is a man who is trying to link Putin with Hitler, but
he does not even know if a neo-Nazi collaborator Victoria
Nuland exists!
When I pressed the issue further and provided evidence
that Nuland is supporting neo-Nazis and asked Haug
whether he was going to write an article about this issue,
the response was even more interesting: “I’ll leave it up
to you.” In other words, Haug did not want to know.
What we are seeing over and over is a reversion of
moral and political logos, and the inception of this
story goes back to the first century when the Jewish
people as a group rejected ultimate Logosand preferred
Barabbas, who was a thief and a robber.
Some has ridiculously and repugnantly postulated ad
nauseam that the Jewish revolt against logos throughout
history proves that their rebellion has a racial or genetic
basis. Hence, the oft-repeated rhetorical question, “is
Judaism simply a religion?”
Well, is Christianity just a religion? Is Islam just a
religion? Is Buddhism just a religion? Why does the
question stop with Judaism? How is it a coherent
argument? How is that a basis for ridiculous and
unnecessary hypothesis which ultimately leads to a moral
and intellectual bottleneck?
If Christianity has been affecting people’s lives for
centuries, does that lead to the nonsensical notion that
people who embrace Christianity has a genetic basis?
People who propose the genetic hypothesis do not want
to understand that there is a difference between morality
and DNA [51] and that theological substratum has
enormous ramifications.
Moreover, if Jewish behavior is genetic, how can those
theorists seriously go around convincing people like
Goldman Sachs and Bernie Madoff that they ought not to
behave a certain way and that they can actually change
their lifestyle? How can they seriously and rationally
praise people like Norman Finkelstein who do not buy the
Zionist ideology?
Proponents of the genetic hypothesis certainly know
something about Newtonian physics and the laws of
genetics, but they do not want to apply it all the way.
Furthermore, if we use their argument against them, the
genetic hypothesis is so ingrained in their DNA that they
cannot see the obvious.
And this is why it is hard to respond to those people
precisely because if Jewish behavior is genetic, then the
hypothesis that “Jewish behavior is genetic” can also be
shown to be genetic, a self-defeating philosophy. In
50
other words, is there a gene for believing in the genetic
hypothesis?
What I have discovered over the past few months is that
many of those who postulate this idea do not want to
know; on many occasions they appeal to silly arguments
to make a point. A few months ago, I have tried to
reason with a man who thought that Jewish behavior is
also genetic.
When I pointed out to him some of the scientific and
rational evidence against the theory, and when I even
pointed out the cardinal error in books such as Harry
Ostrer’s Legacy: The Genetic History of the Jewish
People and how he cooked up some of his evidence to
marshal the Zionist propaganda which my email
correspondent repudiates,[52] it seemed that I had
destroyed his “scientific” faith in the genetic hypothesis.
Yet to my surprise, my email correspondent continued on
to believe what he wanted to believe anyway because he
did not want to know. He even continued to say that
Ostrer is still right!
All of a sudden, I was the bad guy who wants to destroy
his truth. I began to get some nasty emails saying that
Alexis is not interested in the truth.
Was his behavior toward me genetic as well? If so, did I
make a huge mistake responding to his emails, thinking
that he would change his mind if he sees the evidence?
If Jewish behavior is genetic, how about Christ and his
disciples, Solomon Michael Alexander, Hermann Cohen,
Baptista Giovanni Jonas, Leopold Cohn, Theodore
Ratisbonne, Michael Polanyi, Israel Shahak, Israel
Shamir, Mortimer Adler, Gilad Atzmon, Roi Tov, etc.?
Well, according to the logical deduction of the genetic
hypothesis, those people are just misfits or genetic
defects in the evolutionary scale.[53] Even if a Jewish
person becomes Christian and rejects the Talmudic
hatred of the goyim, he still must have that genetic
behavior in his gut because what happens genetically
happens automatically. I just do not know why some
people still maintain that ridiculous notion.
Moreover, if Jewish behavior is genetic, why would
people be upset when certain Jews act in a certain way?
Why shouldn’t people like Eli Roth say things like, to
“‘fuck an entire generation’ is in my genes”?
When Paramount Pictures feared
that Darren Aronofsky’s Noah may not attract a lot of
Christian viewers, Aronofsky declared point-blank, “I
don’t give a fuck about the test scores. My films are
outside the scores.”[54] Did his DNA compel him to
make the assertion?
On what basis should people convince people like Roth to
act differently? And how did they get that behavior in
their genes? Those are the questions that do not get
answers because they ruin the ideological force of the
genetic hypothesis.
And if people are writing books month after month
saying that the Jewish behavior ought to change, aren’t
they presupposing that the issue is moral and not
primarily genetic? Would you offer a blind man the choice
of making a right or left turn when you know he cannot
see in the first place?
Christ confronted the genetic theory which the Pharisees
of his day desperately tried to propose and rejected it out
of hand. If there is to be solid research and serious
rationality on this issue, we do not need to appeal to
dubious and unnecessary hypothesis which is not rooted
and ground in metaphysical truth.
---------------------------------------[1] Sarah
Gordon, Hitler,
Germans,
and
the
“Jewish
Question” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 48.
[2] Richard Evans, The Third Reich at War (New York: Penguin,
2008), 686, 688-689.
[3] Berben, Dachau., 11.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 12.
[6] Ibid., 140-141.
[7] Ibid., 12.
[8] Ibid., 13.
[9] Ibid., 14.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 18-19.
[15] Johannes
Neuhausler, What
Was
it
Like
in
the
Concentration Camp at Dachau? (Munich: Manz A. G.,1973), 22.
[16] Berben, Dachau, 71.
[17] Ibid., 57.
[18] Ibid., 57-58.
[19] Ibid., 60.
[20] Ibid., 72.
[21] Ibid., 72-73.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., 73.
[25] Ibid., 75.
[26] Ibid., 77.
[27] Ibid., 77-78.
[28] Gordon, The “Jewish Question”, 103.
[29] See for example Ben Urwand, The Collaboration:
Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2013); Thomas Doherty, Hollywood and Hitler, 19331939 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).
[30] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on
the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
[31] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (New York:
Mariner Books, 2012), 13, 58-59.
[32] E.
Michael
Jones,
“Woody
Allen
and
Double
Standard,” Culture Wars, March 2014.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Cited in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1007-1008.
[36] Peter Osborne, “Syria: As the Bombs Fall, the People of
Damascus Rally Round Bashar al-Assad,” Telegraph, April 17,
2014.
[37] Scott Peterson, “Iran Ahead of Schedule in Complying with
Nuclear Deal, UN Watchdog Says,” Christian Science Monitor,
April 17, 2014.
[38] See for example Seth Mandel, “Obama’s eBay Diplomacy in
Action,” Commentary, April 18, 2014; Max Boot, “How to Get
Moscow’s Attention,” Commentary, April 17, 2014; Joseph Klein,
“Diplomatic Breakthrough on Ukraine or More Russian
Lies?,” FrontPage Magazine, April 18, 2014; Michael Barone,
“Obama’s Dithering Ukraine Policy,” National Review, April 18,
2014; Thomas Friedman, “Go Ahead, Vladimir, Make My
Day,” NY Times, April 12, 2014; Garry Kasparov, “It’s Time to
Stop Putin,” Washington Post, March 20, 2014.
[39] Scott Shane, “2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11’s
Wake,” NY Times, August 11, 2009.
[40] Jason Leopold, “CIA Torture Architect Breaks Silence to
Defend ‘Enhanced Interrogation,’” Guardian, April 18, 2014.
[41] Caroline Glick, “Column One: The Disappearance of US
Will,” Jerusalem Post, April 17, 2014.
[42] Russell
Kirk,
“Neoconservatives:
An
Endangered
Species,” American Conservative, November 21, 2012.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Jillian Kay Melchior, “Who Are the Real Ukrainian AntiSemites?,” National Review, April 17, 2014.
[45] Alec Luhn, “Anti-Semitic Flyers ‘by Donetsk People’s
Republic’ in Ukraine a Hoax,” Guardian, April 18, 2014; “Ukraine
51
Rabbi Calls Anti-Semitic Leaflet a Political Hoax,” Jerusalem
Post, April 20, 2014.
[46] E. Michael Jones, “Crimea River: The Hypocrisy of U.S.
Foreign Policy,” Culture Wars, April 2014.
[47] David M. Herszenhorn, “Russia Is Quick to Bend Truth
About Ukraine,” NY Times, April 15, 2014.
[48] Melik Kaylan, “Why CIA Director Brenan Visited Kiev: In
Ukraine the Covert War Has Begun,” Forbes, April 16, 2014.
[49] Paul Craig Roberts, “The New York Times Has Acquired a
New Judith Miller,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 17, 2014.
[50] Jay
Haug,
“The
American
Left
is
Positively
Putinesque,” American Thinker, April 14, 2014.
[51] For further studies on similar issues, see for example M. R.
Bennett and P. M. S. Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of
Neuroscience (Malden: Blackwell, 2003); Nancey Murphy and
Warren S. Brown, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical
and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and
Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Mario
Beauregard, Brain Wars: The Scientific Battle Over the Existence
of the Mind and the Proof That Will Change the Way We Live Our
Lives (New York: HarperOne, 2012).
[52] For a brief introduction, see for example Rita Rubin, “‘Jews
a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA
Expert,” Jewish Daily Forward, May 7, 2013.
[53] In order to maintain similar positions, one correspondent
told me that Christ and his disciples were not Semites!
[54] Isn’t it interesting that Aronofsky, Russell Crowe, and
Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore attempted to meet Pope
Francis in order for him to bless the film!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/20/concentrat
ion-camps-nazi-collaborators-and-zionist-contradictionspart-vi/
_____________________________________________________________________
Soap Stories, Gas Chambers, and the Magic Number
By Jonas E. Alexis April 23, 2014
Using William Whewell’s phrase “consilience of “What can we conclude about this story? Soap was never
inductions,” Michael Shermer, publisher and editor manufactured on an industrial scale from victims’ bodies,
of Skeptic magazine,
argues
that
Holocaust but it may have been done experimentally.
historians base their arguments on essentially four “As in the case of renegade SS unit abusing corpses,
key foundations: a convergence of evidence made there may have been isolated cases of turning human fat
by
eyewitnesses,
a
collection
of
reliable into soap, but certainly not an organized plan to do so on
documents, photographs, and physical evidence. any scale. We agree with the holocaust historian Yisrael
[1]
Gutman, who concludes that ‘it was never done on a
What Shermer does not tell his readers was that there mass scale.’” [6]
was a “convergence of evidence” showing that people
were gassed at Belsen, Dachau, and other places; there
was a “convergence of evidence” showing that the Nazis
used Jewish fat to make soap. Alleged eyewitnesses were
summoned,
supposed
documents
were
used,
photographs were forged, and physical evidence was
fabricated.
Those claims were made by a wide range of Jewish
organizations and leaders, including Simon Wiesenthal,
one of the most colossal hoaxers and forgers in the
twentieth century. [2]
These stories, particularly the soap story, spread like
wildfire in Poland, Slovakia, and even Germany. This was
so popular that “by July 1942 rumors were rife all over
Eastern Europe that Jews were killed in great numbers
and ‘boiled into soap.’ ”[3]
Yet it took Jewish historian Walter Laqueur years to
declare that the soap story was demonstrably
false.[4] Now no serious Holocaust historian believes
those stories. They were first challenged by people
labeled “deniers,” some of whom were persecuted for
Jewish anthropologist and doctor Melvin Konner of Emory
challenging accepted dogma.
University even goes so far as to say that
Consider Paul Rassinier, a French anti-Nazi history and
“under the pressure of the Soviet advance, fat was
geography teacher who smuggled Jewish refugees into
rendered from the Jewish bodies in cremation to be
Switzerland. Rassinier was captured by the Nazis in 1943
poured back onto the flames and accelerate the burning.
and sent to Buchenwald. When the war was over, he was
“Jewish blood was extracted from seven hundred
released and returned to France, where he was awarded
women at Auschwitz to be transfused to German
the highest decoration from the French government.
soldiers, casting racial purity to the winds, and of
Rassinier, however, was appalled at some of the claims
course without concern for the women’s survival;
being propagated. Although he hated the Nazi policies,
‘the women were lying on the ground, faint, ‘and
he knew that there were no people being gassed in gas
deep rivers of blood were flowing around their
chambers.[5]
bodies.’ ”[7]
Yet despite that the soap and Jewish fat stories have
Now Konner again is a doctor who was trained in the
been disbanded by the Holocaust establishment itself,
sciences at Harvard. It is amazing that he provides not a
many continue to propagate them as if they were true.
single evidence for his assertion. If the Germans were
Michael Shermer and his co-author Alex Grobman write:
concerned about racial purity, why would they take
Jewish blood and mix it with German soldiers? Were the
Germans that stupid?
52
For Richard L. Rubenstein of Florida State University,
there were “subordinate industries” in Nazi Germany,
“such as the turning of the fat from Jewish bodies into
reine judische Seife, ‘pure Jewish soap,’ their gold teeth
into Reichsbank deposits, and occasionally, their skin into
luminous lampshades. ”[8]
Is that historically accurate?
Historian Giles MacDonogh notes that it was never
clear that the gas chamber, although it existed,
“had been put to use. The normal method of execution
was Genicksschuss—a shot in the back of the head—and
there was a special part of the camp where the killing
took place. To gas the Dachauer, the usual method was
to transfer them to Hartheim, across the border in
Austria. Over 3,000 died this way.” [9]
In other words, no one was gassed in Dachau. Paul
Berben, who was at one of the camps, declared that “the
Dachau gas-chamber was never operated.”[10]
Dr. Johannes Neuhausler, a Catholic priest who was sent
to Dachau by the Nazis and lived there from July 12,
1941, until April 24, 1945, noted that
“Dachau had…its own gas chamber. But its ‘showers’
were never used. Instead, the inmates of the Dachau
camp were sent to Linz in Austria to be gassed.” [11]
Tales of people who were sent to be gassed at other
places were based solely on hearsay.[12] Yet French
Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet tells us that even
“‘hearsay witnesses who in fact did not see’ [people
gassed] have something to teach us. ”[13]
Indeed they do, but for them to say that they actually
saw people being gassed is a lie. All they can tell us is
that there were indeed gas chambers, and that hearsay
about people being gassed was popular. In fact, the
legendary stories that people were being gassed were
popularized by the Soviets, most specifically by Alexei
Tolstoy, [14] who had an undying hatred for the
Germans.
German historian Joachim Hoffman declared that
“discussion in this regard gained renewed
momentum after Soviet troops crossed the border
of the form General Government of Poland and
captured the Majdanek concentration camp in
August 1944.
“The Soviet writer and propagandist Simonov, who
devoted elaborate coverage to this event in an
official report, as early as August 17, 1944, for the
first time stated in one of his articles that fixed
extermination camp of Lublin, in addition to
murder vans of the usual type for killing purposes—
which Ehrenburg called the ‘gas-van method.’
“Simonov wrote a detailed report on the gassing of
people allegedly having occurred in Majdanek in an
article under the headline ‘Nazi gas chambers’ on
August 24, 1944, but without solid proof; in so
doing, he unreservedly admitted, or at any rate
made no effort to conceal the following: ‘By the
way, Cyclon [sic; Zyklon] (the killing gas) is, in
reality, a disinfection agent.’” [15]
We are also not told that Zyklon-B, the product that was
allegedly used to gas people in concentration camps, was
primarily used to disinfect buildings as well as the clothes
of the prisoners in many of the camps. [16]
The stories of people being gassed were presented to the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg by Soviet
prosecutor Chief Justice Counselor L. N. Smirnov, [17]
and were later believed to be fact.
Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, who firmly believed in the
gas chamber story, notes that “sources for the study of
the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable,” and
talks about the “many contradictions, ambiguities, and
errors in the existing sources.” [18]
Polish scholar and historian Franciszek Piper of the
Historical Department at the Auschwitz state Museum
portrayed some inconsistencies when he tried to present
the gas chamber story as true. He writes that
“to avoid leaving any evidence in writing, Himmler called
camp commandant Rudolf Hoss to Berlin and verbally
informed him of his plan, without the usual presence of
the Reichsfuhrer’s aide-de-camp. ”[19]
Does Piper give evidence that Himmler did not want to
leave evidence? No. Then Piper moves on to his next
hypothesis with no evidence:
“It can also be hypothesized that in locating the center
for the mass killing of the Jews in this relatively
new…concentration camp, Himmler tried to use the
camouflage of the well-known camps of the 1930s to hid
the radical purposes of Auschwitz. ”[20]
53
But Piper provides his own death sentence in his
treatment of Auschwitz:
“Documentary sources are essential for writing
history, marking both the direction and scope of
research,
and
narrowing
the
latitude
for
speculation and hypotheses.
“The essential sources for research on the Nazi
concentration camps would in principle include the
files of the camp offices and such administrative
agencies as the Inspectorate of Concentration
Campos, the Reich Security Main Office, and the SS
Central Office for Economy and Administration.
These files, however, were largely destroyed since
they could have been used in prosecutions after
the war.” [21]
If the files were destroyed, how can Piper know
authoritatively the number of people who actually died
and so on? The evidence suggests that the Soviets
destroyed most of the documents in order to continue to
propagate their own ideological worldview. [22] Since the
files do not exist, Piper tells us that
“the researcher has to employ, much more frequently
than is otherwise common, indirect sources, including
materials for the camp resistance movement as well as
reports, memoirs, and testimonies by inmates and other
eyewitnesses.” [23]
Ilya Ehrenburg
Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman declare that
Arno J. Mayer is taken out of context by people who do
not believe in the gas chamber story.
In examining the case for the gas chamber, Shermer and
Grobman do not even mention that the concentration
camps were taken over by the Soviets, because that
would weaken their premises.
Moreover, they do not give the fact that the six-million
figure was already in circulation in 1919, long before
World War II even started.
It was primarily popularized by Martin Henry Glynn, a
politician from New York and a writer for the American
Hebrew who wrote an article in the same year entitled
“The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop.” This article
referred to the six-million figure at least three times.
[24]
Then,
Ilya
Ehrenburg,
the
most
anti-German
propagandist during that period, promoted the six-million
figure even before World War II ended, as early as 1944.
Ehrenburg, who was Jewish, wrote:
“In regions they seized, the Germans killed all the Jews,
from the old folks to infants in arms. Ask any German
prisoner why his fellow countrymen annihilated six
million innocent people, and he will reply quite simply,
‘Why, they were Jews.’” [25]
By March 1945, Ehrenburg again propounded, “The world
now knows that Germany has killed six million Jews.”
[26]
Joachim Hoffman wrote,
“The stereotypical repetition of a total six million murder
victims, already claimed with precise clarity on December
22, 1944—and this in the propaganda newspaper Soviet
War News, intended for English-speaking readers—gives
rise to the conclusion that the six-million figure…is a
product of Soviet propaganda, intended to influence and
indoctrinate public opinion, particularly, the thinking of
the Anglo-Saxon countries. ”[27]
The six-million figure, as already noted, was widespread
among some Jews who wanted to use the number for
political activism. Felix Warburg for example was quoted
in a New York Times article published in 1919, saying,
“The successive blows of contending armies have all but
broken the back of European Jewry and have reduced to
tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease
about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population of
the earth.”[28]
Hoffman continues,
“The evidence, from the Soviet War News of December
22, 1944, January 4, 1945, and March 15, 1945, that it
was Ehrenburg who introduced the six-million figure in
the Soviet war propaganda, is not without importance to
scientific discussion of this emotionally charged
topic.”[29]
Alexei Tolstoy
Hoffman pointed out that Ehrenburg’s fabrication is in no
way a license for anyone to assert that the Jewish people
did not suffer at the hand of Nazi Germany.
“This must not, of course, distract attention from the fact
that frightful atrocities were committed against the
Jewish people in the occupied territories. ”[30]
Yet the six-million figure began to crop up in popular
books as if it was a historical fact. Even Waclaw
Dlugoborski, Professor of Economic and Social History
and Curator for Research Inquiries at the Memorial
Auschwitz-Birkena, noted in 1998:
“The figure was established by a Soviet Investigative
Commission, without further investigation, at four
million, shortly after the end of the war. Regardless of
the existence of doubt as to the accuracy of the
estimate, it became a dogma from the beginning.
54
“It was against the law to doubt the number of four
million murder victims in Eastern Europe until 1989;
employees of the Auschwitz Memorial Museum who
doubted the accuracy of the estimate were threatened
with disciplinary proceedings. ”[31]
reconstructed undressing rooms, gas chambers, and
crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau are part of the recent
restoration of the camp a s a museum.”[34]
If that is the case, then how can one be sure that the
Nazis did indeed use the place to gas people? They go on
to argue that some of the buildings, such as
Crematorium I at Auschwitz I, were “reconstructed using
both original materials and those from other
buildings.”[35]
That again begs the question: the Soviets are doing the
reconstructions. Alexei Nikolayevich Tolstoy is largely
credited as one of the first persons to propagate the gas
chamber theory.[36]
But Tolstoy was hardly a reliable source, since he and
Ilya Ehrenburg both believed that revenge on the
Germans was necessary, no matter what the cost, even
if “facts” had to be fabricated. From 1927 to 1940, Soviet
propagandists posited both explicitly and ideologically
that the Bolsheviks were fighting the bad guys, i.e.,
Germany.
Alesandr Alexandrovich Fadeev for example wrote a
novel in 1927 entitled Razgrom (Destruction) and then
another,Molodaja Gvardija (Young Guard), in 1945 in
which he extolled the Soviet regime as good and others
Pierre Vidal-Naquet
as bad.
Eyewitnesses can be accounted as evidence so long
Fadeev committed suicide in 1956. Other propagandists
as they are reliable, but we have already seen that the
include Konstant in Mikhailovich Simonov and Evgeni
Holocaust is riddled with mysteries and unanswered
Viktorovich Tarle.[37]
questions; it would be irrational for anyone to jump into
the bandwagon of “eyewitnesses,” particularly when
those alleged eyewitnesses produce contradictory
statements.
But the skeptics are much more on a rational ground in
proclaiming, “You show me the evidence, and I will
believe you.” Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence. If extraordinary claims cannot be backed by
rigorous historical data, then we must dismiss those
claims as unreliable. Michael Shermer in particular knows
this, but he does not want to apply it to the Holocaust
stories.
As we shall see, many of the sources are largely
Melvin Connor
unreliable because they came from the Soviets who not Tolstoy “received the Stalin Prize for the novel Petr
only had forged some of the data, but were determined Pervyj (Peter
I),
which
has
remained
to take revenge on the Germans.
unfinished.”[38] Ehrenburg, for his underground work,
The documents on the Nazis were supposed to have been received the Stalin Prize First Class, the highest prize the
lost, but the Soviets confiscated them and they were not Soviet Union had to offer.[39]
made available until 1991. Some individuals who have As the Soviet War News declared in 1944, “The Soviet
seen the documents claim that “there are no less than people regard him as one of their best writers and their
88,000 pages” of them.[32]
greatest patriot.”[40] In light of these facts, one would
When the war was over, the Soviets maintained control expect little or no mercy from the Soviets.[41]
over the documents. Many alleged eyewitnesses who Why did Ehrenburg receive those accolades? Here’s
said that they witnessed Jews being gassed were also what he said about the Germans:
some of the eyewitnesses who propagated the human “Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the
soap story.
word German means to us the most terrible curse.
Mayer declares that “from 1942 to 1945, certainly at From now on the word German will trigger your
Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed rifle…If you have not killed at least one German a
by so-called ‘natural’ causes than by ‘unnatural’ ones. day, you have wasted that day.
”[33]
“If you think that instead of you, the man next to
you will kill him, you have not understood the
Shermer and Grobman make an argument in their threat. If you do not kill the German, he will kill
book that works against them. They write,
you. If you cannot kill your German with a bullet,
“Keep in mind that the gas chambers at Auschwitz- kill him with your bayonet.
Birkenau, where the deniers have conducted their “If there is calm on your part of the front, if you
analyses, were completely destroyed by the Nazis as the are waiting for the fighting, kill a German before
Russians were closing in on the camp in late 1944…
combat. If you leave a German alive, the German
“There is nothing but rubble there, completely exposed will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman.
to the elements for over half a century. The partially
55
“If you kill one German, kill another—there is Gerstein maintained that there were between 28 and 32
nothing more amusing for us than a heap of people per square meter in a room 1.8 meter high—a
German corpses. Do not count days; do not count mathematical impossibility.
miles. Count only the number of Germans you have
killed.
“Kill the German—this is your old mother’s prayer.
Kill the German—this is what your children beseech
you to do. Kill the German—this is the cry of your
Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill.
”[42]
Doug Christie
The gas chamber controversy again became an issue
that refused to go away in 1985 when Raul Hilberg was
summoned to testify at the trial of Ernst Zundel, who
was falsely accused of Holocaust denial.[43]
Zundel’s attorney, Douglas Christie, pressed Hilberg to
give historical evidence of a Hitler order to exterminate
all Jews in Germany, a claim which Hilberg made in his
widely read book The Destruction of the European Jews.
Hilberg eventually confessed that no such order existed.
Then Christie moved on to his next point: evidence for
the gas chamber theory.
“What do you mean by a scientific report?,” asked
Hilberg.
“I don’t usually have to define simple words,” said
Christie, “but by ‘scientific report’ I mean a report
conducted by anyone who purported to be a scientist and
who examined physical evidence. Name one report of
such a kind that showed the existence of gas chambers
anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory.”
“I still don’t quite understand the import of your
question,” said Hilberg.
“Are you referring to a German, or a post-war—”
“I don’t care who—German, post-war, Allied, Soviet—any
source at all. Name one,” said Christie.
“To prove what?,” asked Hilberg.
“To conclude that they have physically seen a gas
chamber. One scientific report,” repeated Christie.
“I am really at loss. I am very seldom at such a loss,
but…”
Judge Locke interrupted: “Doctor…do you know of such a
report?”
“No,” replied Hilber g.[44]
The debate became interesting when Christie asked
Hilberg about some of his sources, particularly Kurt
Gerstein, who allegedly witnessed the gassing of some
3,000 Jews in camps such as Belzec and Treblinka.[45]
Moreover, he maintained before he committed suicide in
a French prison that at least 20 million people were
gassed. Christopher R. Browning admits that Gerstein
makes things even harder with his massive exaggeration
in claiming that at least 20 million people were gasse
d.[46]
Richard J. Evans presents Gerstein as a reliable
eyewitness and seems to trust wholeheartedly in his
testimony, but neglects to mention the difficulties
presented by his testimony.[47] The same goes for
Israeli historian Saul Friedländer who, like many others,
does not doubt for a moment the Gerstein
testimony.[48]
Lucy Dawidowicz, who mentions Gerstein in her book,
does not say a word about the falsehood of Gerstein’s
story.[49]
Hilberg used Gerstein as a testimony six times in his
book.[50] Christie
told Hilberg that a person like Gerstein would be either
crazy or a liar, to which Hilberg responded:
“Well, on this particular datum I would be very careful
because Gerstein, apparently, was a very excitable
person. He was capable of all kinds of statements…
“Christie produced the Gerstein statement and proceeded
to ask Hilberg whether certain statements appeared in
the statement. Hilberg agreed that in his statement,
Gerstein alleged that 700-800 persons were crushed
together in 25 square metres in 45 cubic metres; he also
agreed that he had ignored this part of Gerstein’s
statement in his book…
“And he refers to Hitler and Himmler witnessing
gassings, right?,” asked Christie.
“Hilberg agreed that Gerstein had made this statement
and that it was ‘absolutely’ and ‘totally’ false…
“Christie asked Hilberg whether he considered Gerstein’s
statement—that at Belzec and Treblinka nobody bothered
to make a count and that in fact about 25 million people,
not only Jews, were actually killed—was credible?
“‘Well, parts of it are true, and other parts of it are sheer
exaggeration, manifest and obvious exaggeration. To
me, the important point made in this statement is that
there were no counting at the point at which people
entered the gas chamber,” said Hilberg.” [51]
In other words, Gerstein was one of the best “eyewitness
evidence” that Holocaust historians like Hilberg had for
people being gassed, but Hilberg himself had to quietly
admit that under serious scrutiny, Gerstein was a hoaxer.
He was probably forced to say things that he himself
could not take seriously.
56
Yet incredibly, even after declaring that Gerstein’s
statistics were “manifestly erroneous,” French Jewish
historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet moved on to say that
Gerstein’s testimony “had victoriously survived the test”
![52]
“There was obvious confusion in this one statement,”
said Hilberg. Christie produced Nuremberg document
3868-PS, the Hoss affidavit.
Hilberg agreed he had seen the document before and
agreed he had seen the Wolzek reference. ‘Yes, I’ve seen
that reference. It’s terrible.’
“It’s obvious that something wasn’t quite right about that
individual, would you agree?,” asked Christie.
“No, I wouldn’t say that something wasn’t quite right
about the individual,” said Hilberg. “I would say that
something wasn’t quite right about the circu mstances
under which this was made as an affidavit.”[54]
Raul Hilberg
Hilberg eventually admitted that the evidence for mass
murder in the eastern camps came directly from the
Soviets.
“The whole site,” suggested Christie, “was within the
Soviet sphere of control, and nobody from the west was
allowed into those camps to investigate, isn’t that right?”
“Well, I don’t know of any requests made to
investigate…When you say no one was allowed, it implies
some request,” said Hilberg…“All I could say is, I know of
no Western investigators early on in Auschwitz, or any
of…”
“Treblinka?,” asked Christie.
“Well, there was no more Treblinka in 1945.”
“Sobibor?”
“That was no more.”
“Majdanek?”
“Majdanek is another matter.”
“Was there anybody from the West that went to
Majdaneck?,” asked
Christie.
“Not to my knowledge.”
“Belzec?”
“Belzec was the first camp to have been obliterated.”
“Chelmno or Stuftthof?”
“No, sir.”
“Auschwitz or Birkenau?”
“No. ”[53]
[youtube jx9G4zmpKv0]
Finally, Christie confronted Hilberg with another source
which he had quoted as a witness for mass murder—
Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoss, who was an SS lieutenant
colonel from 1940 to 1943, and was one of the first
commandants of Auschwitz. Hilberg cites Hoss as one of
his authorities, but Christie asked Hilberg why he
mentioned Wolzek, a non-existent camp, in his book:
“Yes, I have seen that garbled reference,’ said Hilberg. ‘It
may have been Belzec. It’s very hard, if the man did not
write anything, if he said things, if he was tired, if he was
misunderstood, if he misspoke himself…”
“Christie pointed out that Hoss referred to Belzec as well
as Wolzek.
“I suggested to you,” he said to Hilberg, “that there is a
reason to believe that this man was not only being
obliged to sign a confession in a language he didn’t
understand, but things were being put into a statement
for him that were patently absurd, like Gerstein.”
Hannah Arendt
Hilberg’s second edition of his voluminous
work was ready to go to press that same year. Within
weeks after the trial, Hilberg made sure that a Hitler
order for the “Final Solution,” a point which he argued in
the first edition, was removed completely, without an
explanation.
Christopher Browning, who believes that Hitler’s 1941
speech to the Gauleiters may have alluded to a Hitler
order and who also believes that “the argument over
whether Hitler gave an order or not is not commonly part
of the issue of Holocaust denial” because enough
reputable historians like Hans Mommsen and Martin
Broszat do not believe in it,[55] was quite surprised that
Hilberg would make such a decision.[56]
Yet in an interview with journalist D. D. Guttenplan,
Hilberg said that he made the change “in the interest of
precision about the evidence,”[57] and never mentioned
the trial during which he was asked to provide evidence
for the assertion and could not. Deep down Hilberg
believed a Hitler order still existed, even though he had
no evidence.[58]
In 1988, Hilberg was asked to testify against Zundel by
prosecutor John Pearson, but this time he declined. Here
is a “confidential” letter, which Hilberg sent to Pearson,
in which he laid the whole issue out:
“I have grave doubts about testifying in the Zündel
case again. Last time, I testified for a day under
direct examination and for three days under crossexamination.
“Were I to be in the witness box for a second time,
the defense would be asking not merely the
relevant and irrelevant questions put to me during
the first trial, but it would also make every attempt
to entrap me by pointing to any seeming
contradiction, however trivial the subject might be,
between my earlier testimony and an answer that I
might give in 1988.
57
“The time and energy required to ward off such an
assault would be great, and I am afraid that the
investment of time alone would be too much, given
all the commitments and deadlines I am facing
now.”[59]
It
is
now
obvious
that
the
Holocaust
establishment is a package deal, and that package deal
is riddled with unanswered questions and unsolved
mysteries.
Be that as it may, we can certainly see that the trial, for
good or bad, made Hilberg think. There is much to be
learned from Hilberg, who was appalled at how the
Holocaust is taught:
“The way in which the Holocaust is now spread in the
high schools and so on makes me gag.”[60]
Even The Destruction of European Jews created quite a
stir, since many Jews thought that Hilberg should have
taken a stronger stance on the Holocaust. Hannah
Arendt, author of the popular book The Origins of
Totalitarianism, advised Princeton University not to
publish the work. Arendt declared that Hilberg
“is pretty stupid and crazy. He babbles now about a
‘death wish’ of the Jews. His book is really
excellent, but only because it is a simple report. A
more general, introductory chapter is beneath a
singed pig.”[61]
The letter in which Arendt said those words appeared in
the American translation in 1992, and the words “stupid”
and “crazy” were omitted. When Hilberg asked why, he
“was told that the statement was struck on legal
advice.”[62] Hilberg also took on Dawidowicz, who
argues that the idea of a Final Solution was already at
work in the mind of Adolf Hitler in the 1920s.[63]
To sum up, the Soviet Union propagated the gas
chamber story (as in the case of Ehrenburg), and
desperately tried to prove that the Germans committed
the mass murder in Katyn, a crime that has been proven
to be committed by the Soviets themselves.[64]
exists because, by word and deed, Palestinian Arabs
have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews.” [69]
The Zionists declared that Jews were being killed daily
in Nazi Germany, but then they turned around and
flooded the Middle East with perpetual wars and esthetic
terrorism, which end up liquidating Palestinians on a
daily basis and literally sodomizing people.
They declared that Jews were being tortured in Nazi
Germany, but then they began to use torture right after
the Iraq invasion, an immoral act that was completely
foreign to America.[70]
They declared that Nazi Germany spied on Jews virtually
everywhere, but then they turned around and spied on
virtually the entire world through the NSA.
They blamed al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for 9/11
and convince the American people that they are at war
with terrorist groups, but then they are supporting alQaeda in Syria and terrorist regimes such as Saudi
Arabia.
The CIA supported bin Laden during the Soviet war in
Afghanistan in the 1980s,[71] but then the Zionist world
turned around and made bin Laden responsible for 9/11.
In a nutshell, much of the world is being manipulated like
puppets in a Zionist machine factory.
Immanuel Kant argues in his Critique of Pure Reason that
there are basically two worlds: the noumenal world and
the phenomenal world. The phenomenal world is the
world of experience, and the noumenal world is the one
that cannot be deduced using experience but it is the
world as things really are.
Many people, if they happen to examine the issues
surrounding the nature of American politics, only see the
phenomenal world—the Left, or the Right, or the
government, etc.
People hardly see the noumenal world where the dreadful
few are actually playing with the political remote control.
The dreadful few can switch the ideological channel at
their whims and only a few seem to notice.
But if truth will win in the end, if Alexander Solzhenitsyn
is right in saying that “one word of truth outweighs the
world,” one needn’t be too frustrated that the dreadful
few are actually winning. There is hope.
Granted, truth is certainly outnumbered in the ideological
war, but numbers, like appearance, can be deceiving. If
only twelve fishermen (some of them unlettered), from
an obscure place in the world called Galilee, challenged
an empire, then truth does not generally need numbers.
What does all that tell us? If Nazi Germany did not
exist, the Zionist world would have almost certainly
invented it.
As we have argued in the previous article, the Zionist
world supposedly hated Nazi Germany in the 1940s but
now loves neo-Nazis in 2014 in Ukraine and supports the
government with millions of dollars.[65]
The Zionist world flooded the international community
with fake news saying that Jews were being gassed, but
they turned around decades later and started killing
people with drones in the Middle East[66] and absolves
themselves from any responsibility by saying things like,
“U.S. drones an d Yemeni forces kill Qaeda fighters.”[67]
Christopher Browning buries the academic word beneath
the avalanche of imaginary and preposterous statements
by saying that the Nazis wanted to murder “every single
Jew in Europe.”[68]
Since Nazi Germany is no longer in existence, the Zionist
world has to find new victims. Now we are being told that
the Palestinians want to murder all the Jews. In a letter
in the New York Times, Walter Schimmerling tells us:
“The ‘conflict’ between Arabs and Jews is not the result
of the ‘Zionist lobby’ preventing the United States from
enforcing ‘peace.’ Left unsaid is the extent to which such
But in the battle between truth vs. error, I have
a ‘peace’ may imperil the survival of Israel, although that
pointed out in the previous article that one needn’t
is a likely goal of ‘Zionist lobby’ detractors. The ‘conflict’
58
appeal to hypothesis which may lead to a moral
and intellectual impasse.
I have said that Jewish behavior is a moral problem, not
a genetic problem. I further pointed out that Christ
himself destroyed the genetic hypothesis, saying that by
rejecting him, the Pharisees and the Jewish people in
general could not be the descendent of Abraham.
If the issue was genetic, it would be ridiculous for Christ
to reject it and appeal to morality. However, this
theological issue has been challenged by a number of
writers of various stripes.
Paul Austin Murphy of the neoconservative flagship
the American Thinkerhas insinuated quite subtly that
Shlomo Sand, author of the Invention of the Jewish
People, is a “self-described communist” who has
appealed to the “Khazar theory”[72] to buttress his
point. By deduction, the Khazar theory somehow must be
false.
The “Khazr theory,” Murphy concludes, is really “Jewhatred.” Even if this theory is false, Murphy tells us, “A
confirmed and professional hater of the Jews will simply
find another reason to hate them. And that reason will no
doubt also be racial in nature.”[73]
Murphy is certainly locked in the genetic fallacy here,
which is a false argument in formal reasoning and in logic
and which is literally an unconvincing way to prove a
point.
In formal logic, the genetic fallacy is the idea that you
can invalidate a person’s belief by pointing out how the
belief originated in the first place. Every freshman in
logic knows that this is demonstrably and hopelessly
false.
For example, suppose I pick up a comic book in a trash
can. Upon inspection, I discover that the comic book
declares that the earth is round. Does that mean that the
earth is not round because I picked up the comic book
from a trashcan? Obviously not.
Throughout his analysis, Murphy trivializes the issue and
does not analyze Sand’s claims and the evidence Sand
provides for those claims. Murphy appeals to straw man,
ad hominem, and illogical leaps, such as the following:
“Shlomo Sand’s all-encompassing Leftist ideology—as
well as his zealous hopes for a fully socialist Israel (which
would amount to Israel’s annihilation)—permeates just
about every single word he utters.
“If his readers don’t understand that, then they will have
no idea about where this man is coming and what he is
trying to achieve through his books and articles…
incidentally, almost all of the contemporary believers are
either Leftists, Nazis, or Islamists.”[74]
“Leftists,” Murphy continues, “propagate the theory, or
myth,” because they want “to destroy Israel. Both Nazis
and Leftists want to destroy Israel because it is a
capitalist and democratic state for Jews; which is a
three-level heresy for any respectable Leftist or Nazi. All
this clearly shows us how deeply both International
Socialists and National Socialists fuse on the Jews and on
so much more.”[75]
I wish Murphy would take logic seriously and realize that
this is not an argument which deserves serious
consideration. But it is so sad to see that this sophomoric
tactic has become somewhat popular in current thinking.
If people want to dismiss Sand and others, they have
some serious thinking to do. In some cases, an idea has
to be dismissed by the evidence.
For example, Jewish geneticist Eran Elhaik gave specific
example of how other Jewish geneticists such as Harry
Ostrer forge their evidence and how Ostrer himself
refused to tell others how he got his sources. This has
been a consistent pattern in the debate. As a serious
scientist, Elhaik approached Ostrer and asked him quite
frankly,
“It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent
paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that
illuminate[s] the history of our people. Is it possible to
see the data used for the study?”
A very simple inquiry, and scientists of all persuasions
would unanimously agree here. Here is Ostrer’s
response,
“It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a
brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do. Criteria
for reviewing include novelty and strength of the
proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities,
and
non-defamatory
nature
toward the
Jewish
people.”[76]
As a scientist, why would that statement even pop up in
Ostrer’s head? How do you present a scientific research
when you cannot show your critics how you arrive at the
evidence? I thought we were talking about a scientific
enterprise here?
Likewise, Sand historically documented how the genetic
theory originated and some of the major flaws in the
system. Furthermore, there have been other substantial
historical studies on this issue.[77] But none of those
studies got a fair hearing by the genetic theorists. They
ridicule them and brush them aside and move on to
believe what they want to believe.
It simply amazes me to see that people who profess to
move by reason and evidence sometimes would abandon
reason and evidence and even intellectual honesty in
order to adore and embellish their cherished ideology.
Jewish behavior is genetic, but genetic theorists keep
getting upset when they see Jewish revolutionaries act
on that basis. If those theorists cannot see that this is a
risible argument, we cannot help them. There is nothing
else to discuss.
If one follows their logic consistently, the only way to
solve the genetic problem is to destroy the gene that
caused the wicked act in the first place—or to isolate
those who do possess bad genes.
That, friends, is real anti-Semitism or racism. Whether
they like it or not, genetic theorists cannot avoid the
implication of their weltanschauung, which inexorably is
as wicked and repugnant as Zionism.
[youtube uiGo-ybL-7E]
_____________________________
[1] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things:
Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our
Time (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997 and 2002),
214, 240-241.
[2] For documented accounts, see for example Guy
Walters, Hunting Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and
the Quest to bring Them to Justice (New York: Broadway Books,
2010); Tom Segev, Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and
Legends (New York: Doubleday, 2010).
[3] Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the
Truth about Hitler’s “Final Solution” (New York: Henry Holt,
1998), 145.
[4] Ibid., 82.
[5] See Paul Rassinier, The Holocaust Story and the Lies of
Ulysses: A Study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and the
Alleged Extermination of European Jewry (Newport Beach, CA:
Noontide Press, 1977).
59
[6] Michael Shermer and Alex Grubman, Denying History: Who
Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say
It? (Berkley: University of California Press, 2002), 117.
[7] Melvin Konner, The Jewish Body (New York: Random House,
2009), 104.
[8] Richard L. Rubenstein, After Auschwitz: History, Theology,
and Contemporary Judaism (Baltimore and London: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1966 and 1992), 59.
[9] MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied
Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 67-68.
[10] Berber, Dachau, 8.
[11] Neuhausler, What Was it Like?, 29.
[12] See
Joachim
Hoffmann, Stalin’s
War
of
Extermination (Chicago: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2001),
181-183
[13] Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1993), 25
[14] Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 182.
[15] Ibid., 182-183.
[16] See Franciszek Piper, “Gas Chambers and Crematoria,”
Israel Gutman and Michael Berenbaum, Anatomy of the
Auschwitz Death Camp (Bloomington: University of Indiana
Press, 1998), 157.
[17] Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 185.
[18] Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The
“Final Solution” in History (New York: Pantheon Books,
1998), 362, 363.
[19] Franciszek Piper, “Auschwitz Concentration Camp,” Gutman
and Berenbaum, Anatomy of Auschwitz, 373.
[20] Ibid., 373.
[21] Ibid., 379-380.
[22] For a historical survey, see Hoffman, Stalin’s War of
Extermination.
[23] Piper, “Auschwitz Concentration Camp,” Gutman and
Berenbaum, Anatomy of Auschwitz, 381.
[24] Martin H. Glynn, “The Crucifixion of the Jews Must
Stop,” AmericanHebrew,October31,1919;http://jrbooksonline.co
m/HTMLdocs/The%20Crucifixion%20of%20Jews%20Must%20Stop.htm.
[25] Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 189.
[26] Ibid., 190.
[27] Ibid., 190.
[28] “Tells Sad Plight of Jews,” NY Times, November 12, 1919.
[29] Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 190.
[30] Ibid., 192.
[31] Ibid., 187.
[32] See Jurgen Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay (Chicago:
Theses & Dissertations Press, 2001), 20.
[33] Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, 365.
[34] Shermer and Gobman, Denying History, 132.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Nuremberg Trial Proceedings, Vol.
7: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp.
[37] Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 153-154.
[38] Ibid., 155.
[39] Ibid., 157.
[40] Ibid., 158.
[41] Norman M. Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History
of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949(Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1995), 396.
[42] See Alfred Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The
Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 40; Norman M. Naimark, The
Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of
Occupation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 72;
Antony Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall 1945 (New York: Penguin,
2002), 169; Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: From War to
Peace (New
York:
Harper
Perennial,
2009),
150;
Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 235-236.
[43] Zundel does not say that Jews did not suffer under Nazi
Germany; He simply asked the puzzling question, “Did six
million really die?” In fact, according to Raul Hilberg, Yehuda
Bauer and many others, the answer is a resounding no.
[44] Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 113-114.
[45] Saul Friedlander, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of
God (New York: Afred A. Knopf, 1969), 112.
[46] Christopher R. Browning, “Evidence for the Implementation
of the Final Solution”
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/en/trial/defense/brownin
g/.541.0).
[47] Evans, The Third Reich at War, 558-559.
[48] Saul Friedlander, The Years of Extermination: Nazi
Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945 (New York: HarperCollins,
2007), 458-459.
[49] Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews (New York:
Bantam, 1986), 350.
[50] Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 92-93.
[51] Ibid., 114-115.
[52] Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 92-93.
[53] Ibid., 114-115.
[54] Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 116.
[55] D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: W. W.
Norton, 2002), 212-213.
[56] Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 26.
[57] Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial, 303.
[58] Ibid., 303.
[59] “The ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zundel—1988,” Institute for
Historical Review.
[60] Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial, 304.
[61] Raul Hilberg, The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a
Holocaust Historian (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), 155.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid., 144-146.
[64] See Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, chapter 8.
[65] For a recent development, see Scott Wilson, Will Englund,
and William Booth, “In Kiev, Biden Pledges Support for Fair
Election, Help to Weather Economic Pressure,” Washington Post,
April 22, 2014.
[66] For recent developments, see Jason Ditz, “At Least 68
Killed as US Drone Strikes on Yemen Enter Third
Day,”Antiwar.com, April 21, 2014.
[67] Erich Schmidt, “U.S. Drones and Yemeni Forces Kill Qaeda
Fighters,” NY Times, April 21, 2014.
[68] Christopher R. Browning, “‘Final Solution,’” Israel Gutman,
ed., The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Vol. II(New York:
Macmillan, 1990), 488-489.
[69] “Letters: ‘Peyton Place’ Revisited,” NY Times, March 19,
2014.
[70] See for example David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s
Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
[71] See for example “Al-Qaeda’s Origins and Links,” BBC, July
20, 2004; Robin Cook, “The Struggle Against Terrorism Cannot
Be Won by Military Means,” Guardian, July 8, 2005.
[72] Paul Murphy Austin, “Anti-Semitism and the Khazar
Theory,” American Thinker, February 23, 2014.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Quoted in Rita Rubin, “‘Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes
Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert,” Jewish Daily Forward,
March 10, 2013.
[77] See for example Kevin Alan Brook, The Jews of
Khazaria (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/23/soapstories-gas-chambers-and-the-magic-number-part-vii/
_________________________________________________
60